
"^t^/K 












3>:^^>*^ 












)ai>^^ 












^ 



W^J^LMJLJSm 



'"^li^Sk^i^ 









>..3iLi^^ >V' 






J^ 



■>>. 






LIBRARY OF CONGREl 



^'^«>^^'%'-*'«'^i'm-'%>'^'% «''»'%'<%>;qi 







































:3 ^ ,:« 









• -^ ^ < J: 






v)jg:3^ 









5 35^ 









> /:^i> '^ 



3 ^y^' v>^ ■'S>^ 












;?.^^ 

33r 



-,^i> >_- 






-3-^2^3> 



-^-f:^^^> . 



^J>^^^> 






.N » 



THE NORTHERN MAN 



WITH 



SOUTHERN PRINCIPLES, 



AND 

THE SOUTHERN MAN 

WITH 

AMERICAN PRINCIPLES: 

OR, 
A VIEW OF THE COMPARATIVE CLAIMS 

OF 

GEN. WILLIAM H. HARRISON AND MARTIN VAN BUREN, ESQ., 

CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY, 
TO THE SUPPORT OF CITIZENS OF THE 

SOUTHERN STATES. 



WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED BY PETER FORCE. 

1840. 



MEMORANDUM 



Office of the Executive Committee of the Republican ; 
Committee of Seventy-Six, 

Washington, September "24, 1840. 
The annexed pages, prepared in pursuance of a resolution of the Republican Com- 
mittee of Seventy-Six, exhibit the doctrines and conduct of General Hakrison and 
Mr. Van Buken in relation to subjects of peculiar interest to the Southern States, 
and vindicate General Hakkison against some of the slanders with which he has 
been assailed. The subjects treated of are : 

I The pQweV of the Federal Government over Slavery in the District of Columbia. 
li. The Votes and Speeches of Mr. Van Buren on the subject of Negro Suffrage, 
&ic., duly authenticated and verified. 

III. Negro Testimony. 

IV. The Missouri Question. 

V. The Arkansas and Florida Questions.. 

VI. Abolitionism. 

VII. White Slavery. 

VIII. The Tariff. 

IX. Federalism. 

X. The Militia or Standing Army Bill. 

XI. A National Bank and a Treasury Bank. 

XII. Mr. Van Buren's opposition to James Madjson. 



P. R, FENDALL, 
RICHARD S. COXE, 
GEORGE SWEENY, 
JACOB GIDEON, Jr., )>. 

DAVID A. HALL, 
PEREGRINE WARFIELD, . . 
ROBERT H. MILLER, J ^^ 



=^ 






THE NORTHERN MAN Wl'lH SOUTHERN PRINCIPLES," 



SOUTHERN xM A N ^V I T II AMERICAN PRINCIPLES. 



The partisans of Mr. Van Bur km, in oiJer to recommend him to the suffrages of the 
South, have invented for him the title of "the Northern Man with Southern Principles." 
Let us try this title by the test of evidence, and f.otnpare it with Gen. Harrison's claims, 
examined in the same way, to the favor of the South. 

I. The powek of the Ff.ukral Government to abolish Slavery in the Dis- 
trict OF Columbia is rerrarded by all the slavpholdiiig States as a test question. What 
are the opinions of the two candidates on this question ? 

MR. VAN BURExN'S OPINION. 

On the 23d of February, iSoG, Messrs. Junius Amis and others, citizens of North-Caro- 
Jina, addressed a letter to Mr. Van Buren, in which they say: 

"A portion of your fellow.cit.izeiis in this snction, fp.elinsr a ([oop anxi'Hy as to your views on a 
topic which most vitally affc.clsour iinvKdiaie weljure and knpniness, liavo lliou^lit proper to propound 
lo you the following interrogatory, to whicli we wish an explicit answer: 

"Do yon or do you notbelieve that Congress has the constitutional power to interfere with or 
abolisii slavery in the District of Columbia?" 

On the Gth of March, 1836, Mr. Van Biiren answered the question in an argumenta- 
tive and explanatory letter, in which he says : 

" I would not, from the lights now before me, feel myself safe in pronouncing that Congress does 
not possL-ss the power of interfering with or abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia." 

This, though not as explicit in its language as it might have been, is explicit. enough in 
substance. The English of it is, that Mr. Van Buren DOEs"'be]ieve that Congress has 
the constitutional power to interfere with or abolish slavery in the District of Columbia." 

In a subsequent part of the same letter he says, if elected, 

" I must go into the Presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromi.dng opponent of any attempt, 
on the part of Congress, to abolish slavery in tiie Di.striel ot Columbia, against the wishes of the slave- 
holding States; and also with the d^ti^rniination, ecjually decided, to resist the slightest interiei-enco 
with the subject in th3 States where it exists." 

GEN. ItARRISON'S OPINION. 

■On the 30th of S-ptember, 1836, .Judge John M. Berrien, of Georgia, addressed a letter 
to Gen. Harrison, in which the following question is askrd : 

"Cm tlic Congress oi' tlie United States, consistently with the Constitution, abolish slavery either 
in the States or in tlie District of Coliunbia ?" 

Gen. Harrison answers; 

" I do not tliink that Congress can abolish, or in any manner interfere with slavery, as it exists in 
tiic Stales, but upon the application of the States, nor abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, 
without the consent of the States of Virginia and Maryland, and tlis people of the District. The firat 
would be, in my opinion, a palpable violation of the Constitution, and the latter a breach of faith 
towards the States 1 have mentioned, who would certainly not have made tlio cession, if they had 
supposed that it would ever be used for a purjioso so difterent from that which was its object, and so 
injurious to thein as the location of a free colored popul ition in the midst of their slave population of 
the same description. Nor do I believe that (_'/Oiigr'.-ss could deprive the poo|)le of the District of Co- 
lumbia of their property, without their consult. It would be reviving the doctrine of the tories of 
Great Britain, in relation to the powers of Parlia;neut over the Colonies, before the revolutionary war, 
and in direct hostility to the principle advance-d by Lord Chatham, that ' what was a man's own was 
absolutely and exclusively his own, and could not be taken from him without his consent, given by 
himself or his legal representative.' " 



To a similar question, put by Thomas Sloo, Jun., of New-Orleans, Gen. Harrisow 
answers, November 25th, 1836: 

"First. I do not believe that Congress can abolish slavery in the States, or in any manner interfere 
With the property of the citizens in their slaves, but upon the application of the States ; in which case, 
a^id in no other, they might appropriate money to aid the States so applying to get rid of their slaves. 
Ihese opinions I have always held, and this was the ground upon which I voted against the Missouri 
restriction m the Fifteenth Congress. The opinions given above are precisely those which were 
entertained by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison. 

"Second. I do not believe that Congress can abolish slavery in the District of CcJumtria, without 
the consent of Virginia and Maryland, and the people of the rHstrict," 

In his speech at Vincennes, Indiana, July 4th, 1835, Gen. Harrison says that the 
efforts of the abolitionists are "weak, injudicious, presumptuous, and uncomtitutional,'* 
and are in conflict with the rights of the States. When that speech was delivered, the halls 
of Cong-ress were flooded with petitions for abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, 

In a letter to Harmar Denny, dated December 2, 1838, Gen. Harrison states, as a 
prmciple " proper to be adopted by any Executive sincerely desirous to restore the Ad- 
mmistration to its original simplicity and purity;" "that, in the exercise of the veto 
ppwer, he should limit his rejection of bills to, 1st, such as are in his opinion unconsiitu- 
tional; 2d, such as tend to encroach on the rights of the States or of individuals ; such as, 
involving deep interests, may in his opinion require more mature deliberation, or reference 
to the will of the people, to be ascertained at the succeeding elections." 

It thus appears that Mr. Van Bitren believes that a bill abolishing slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia will be constitutional, but would veto it because he thinks that it 
would be INEXPEDIENT ; and that Gen. Harrison would veto such a bill, on the ground 
of its being unconstitutional. On which pledge can the South more safely rely ? On 
Gen. Harrison's pledge, founded on a confessed want of power and of right ; or on Mr. 
Van Buren's pledge, asserting the poioer and the right, but waiving the exercise of them 
on considerations of expediency, which may be one thing to-day and another thing to-mor- 
row? Gen. Harrison's pledge meets the question at the threshold, and settles it ; Mr. 
Van Buren's pledge keeps the question perpetually open to the influence of ever- varying 
circumstances. 

In estimating the value of this pledge, we should also consider the probabilities for and 
against its being kept. In the year 1827, Mr. Van Buren denounced a proposition to 
extend a general bankrupt law to corporations, as an invasion of State rights ; and said 
that " his idea of a bankrupt system was, that it could not be applied to any but individu- 
als or principals, and that it was not capable of being made to operate on associations, or 
on the subordinate agents ejther of individuals or corporations." — [-See Gales ^ Seaton's 
Register of Debates, vol. 3, pp. 286, 287.] This was Mr. Van Buren's opinion, "from 
the lights before" him, on the 6th of February, 1827. But, afterwards, he urged upon 
Congress " the propriety and importance of a uniform law concerning bankruptcies o/ cor- 
porations and other bankers !" — [President Van Buren' s Message, September ^.^ 1837, 
io Congress, at its special session.] Should that most improbable of all contingencies ever 
arrive, when the South is to seek shelter under Mr. Van Buren's veto on a bill abolishing 
slavery in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Virginia and Maryland and the 
people of the District, who can tell what new " lights " may then be before him? 



II. VOTES AND SPEECHES OF MR. MARTIN VAN BUREN, ON THE 
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE AND NEGRO SUFFRAGE, DULY AUTHEN- 
TICATED AND VERIFIED. 

Extracts from the Journal of the Convention of the State of New- York, begun and 
held at the Capitol in the City of Albany, on the 28th day of August, 1821 : 

[Page 90.] u Thursday, ten o'clock, A. M., September 20, 1821. 

" The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. On motion of Mr. N. Sandford, the Convention 
then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Report of the Committee on the right of 
suffrage, and the qualifications of persons to be elected ; and after some time spent thereon, Mr. Pre. 
sident resumed the chair, and Mr. N. Williams, from the said Committee, reported, tliat in further 
proceeding on the said Report, the first amendment proposed by the Select Committee was again read, 
ia the words following, to wit : 

" Every white male citizen, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in this State 
8IX months next preceding any election, and shall, within one year preceding the election, have paid 



any tax assessed upon him, or shall, within one year preceding the election, have bfen assessed to 
work on a public road, and shall have performed the work assessed upon him, or shall have paid an equi- 
valent in money tliercfor, according to law, or shall, within one year preceding the election, have been 
enrolled in the militia of this State, and shall have served therein according to law, shall be entitled 
to vote at such election in the town or ward in wliich he siiall reside, for Governor, Lieutenant- 
Governor, Senators, Members of the Assembly, and all other officers who are or may bo elected bj 
the people. 

"That Mr. Jay made a motion to strike out the word ^'white," in the first line of the said ajnend- 
ment. 

" That debates were had thereon ; and the question having been put, whether the Comraittoa would 
agree to the said motion, it was carried in the afhrmative. ' 

"That the yeas and nays being called for by .Mr. R. Clarke, seconded by Mr. Tallmadge, and having 
been required by ten members, were as follows, to wit : Ayes 63, Nays 59. 

FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. 



Mr. Bacon, 


Mr. Eastwood, Mr. Park, Mr. 


Tallmadge, 


Baker, 


Edwards, 


Paulding, 


Tuttle, 


Barlow, 


Ferris, 


Pitcher, 


VAN BUREN, 


Beckwith, 


Fish, 


Piatt, 


Van Nese, 


Birdseye, 


Hallock, 


i^evo. 


J. R. Van Rensselaer, 


Brinckerhoff, 


Hees, 


Rhinelander, 


S.Van Rensselaer, 


Brooks, 


Hogeboom, 


Richards, 


Van Vechten, 


Buel, 


Hunting, 


Rogers, 


Ward, 


Burroughs, 


Huntington, 


Rosebrugh, 


A. Webster, 


Carver, 


Jay, 


Sanders, 


Wendover, 


R. Clarke, 


Jones, 


N. Sandford, 


Wheaton, 


Collins, 


Kent, 


Seaman, 


E. Williams, 


Cramer, 


King, 


Steele, 


Woodward, 


Day, 


Moore, 


D. Southerland, 


Wooster, 


Dodge, 


Munro, 


Swift, 


Yates. 


Duer, 


Nelson, 


Sylvester, 






FOR THE 


NEGATIVE. 




Mr. Bowman, 


Mr. Hunt, Mr. Radcliff, Mr, 


, Starkweather, 


Breese, 


Hunter, 


Rockwell, 


J. Sutherland, 


Briggs, 


Hurd, 


Root, 


Taylor, 


Carpenter, 


Knowles, 


Rose, 


Ten Eyck, 


Case, 


Lansing, 


Ross, 


Townley, 


Child, 


Lawrence, 


Russell, 


Townsend, 


D. Clark, 


Leiferts, 


Sage, 


Tripp, 


Clyde, 


A. Livingston, 


R. Sandford, 


Van Fleet, 


Dubois, 


P. R. Livingston 


, Schenck, 


Van Home, 


Dyckman, 


McCall, 


Secley, 


Verbryck, 


Fairlie, 


Millikin, 


Sharpe, 


E. Webster, 


Fenton, 


Pike, 


Sheldon, 


Wheeler, 


Frost, 


Porter, 


J. Smith, 


Woods, 


Howe, 


Price, 


R. Smith, 


Young. 


Humphrey, 


Pumpelly, 


Spencer, 





"State of New. York, Secretary's Office. 
, ♦> I certify tliat I have compared the foregoing extracts with the original passages contained in the 
Journal of the Convention of the State of New-York, begun and held at the Capitol, in the City of 
Albany, on the twcnty-cightli day of August, 1821, printed by the Printers to the State, and deposited 
in this office, and now in my custody, and that the same are correct transcripts therefrom, and of the 
whole of the said original passages. 

" In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office, at Albany, thi« 
twenty-third day of June, 1840. .. j^^j^ ^ SPENCER, Secretary of State" 



Extracts from Carter and Stone's Reports of the proceedings and debates in the Con- 
vention of 1821, assembled for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the State of 
New- York. 

Extract from proceedings of Thursday, September 27, 1821 — -pagi 277. 
RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE. 

" Mr. Van Buren felt himself called on to make a few remarks in reply to the gentleman from 
Delaware. He observed that it was evident, and, indeed, some gentlemen did not seem disposed to 
disguise it, that the amendment, proposed by the honorable gentleman from Delaware, contemplated 
nothing short of universal suffrage. Mr. Van Buren did not believe that there were twenty members 
of that Committee who, were the bare naked question of universal suffrage put to them, would vote 
in its favor ; and he was very sure that its adoption was not expected, and would not meet the views 
of their constituents. 

" Mr. Van Buren then replied to a statement made yesterday by his honorable and venerable friend 
from Erie, (Mr. Russell,) in relation to the exclusion of soldiers who had fought at Quebec and Stoney 



Point, under the bannei-s of Montgomciy antl Waj^ne. Ai>d be felt tlie necessity of doing this, be- 
cause such cases, urged by such gentlemen as hia honorable friend, were calculated to make a deep 
and lasting impression. But altliough a regard for them did honor to tlial gentleman, yet it was the 
duty of the Convention to guard against tlie admission of those impressions which sympathy, in indi- 
vidual cases, may excite. It was alwayw dangerous to legislate upon ths impulse of individual cases, 
where the law, about to be enacted, is to have a g'neral operation. With r;f-rence to the case of our 
soldiers, the praple of this State and Country had certainly redeemed themselves from the imputation 
that republics are ungrati^fnl ; v/ith an lionor.ible libnrality they bad bestowed tlic military lauds upon 
them, and to gladden the evening of their days had provided them with pensions. Few of those pa- 
triots were now living; and of that few, ilia number was y-arly diminisliing. In fifteen years, the 
grave will have covered all those who now survived. Was it not, then, unwise to hazard a whole- 
some restrictive provision, lest, in its operation, it might nfi'.'d these few individuals for a very short 
time ? lie would add no mor?. His duty would not permit him to say less. 

" One word on the main question Ijefore the Counnittoe. We had already reached the verge of uni- 
versal suffrage. There was but one step b -yond. And are gentlemen prepared to take that step ? We^ 
were cheapening this invaluable right. lie was disposed to go as fir as any man in the extension of 
rational liberty, but lie could not cons nt to undervalue this precious privilege so far as to confer it, 
with an undiscriniinating hand, upon every one, black or wliite, who would be kind er>ough to conde- 
scend to accept it." 

Extract from proceedings of M,iu.rday, October 6, 1821 — page 366. 

The question in order was oti the pan of the section expressed in the words following: 

" And, also, every male citizen, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been, for three 
years next preceding such election, an inhabitant of this State, and for the last year a resident in tlic 
town, county, or district, where he may offer his vote, and shall have been, within tlie last year, 
assessed to labor upon the public highways, and shall have performed tlie labor, or pnid an equivalent 
therefor, according to law, shall be entitled to vote in tlie town or ward where he actually resides, and 
not elsewhere, for all officers that now are or hereafter may bo elective by the people. 

" Mr. Van Buren said, that as the vote he should now give, on what was called the highway qua- 
lification, would be different from what it had been on a former occasion, he felt it a duty to make a 
brief explanation of the motives which governed iiim. Tlie qualifications reported by the first Com- 
mittee were of three kinds, viz : the payment of a money tax, the performance of military duty, and 
working on the highway. The two fbruier had met with his decided approbation; to the latter, he 
wished to add the additional qualification, that tlie elector should, if he paid no tax, performed no 
militia "duty, but offered his vote on the sole ground that he had labored on the higiiways, also be a 
householder ; and that was the only point in wiiich lie iiad dissented from the repoi t of the Committee. 
To effect this object, he supported a motion, made by a gentleman from Dutchess, to strike out tiie 
highway qualification, with a view of adding ^'■householder." That motion, after full discussion, had 
prevailed by a majority of twenty. But what was the consequence? The very next day, tiic same 
gentlemen who thought the highway tax too liberal a qualification, voted that every person of twenty- 
one years of age, having a certain term of residence, and excluding actual paupers, should be per- 
mitted to vote for any officer in the Covernment, from tlie highest to the low; st — far oiit-vieing, in 
this particular, the other tttates in tlie Union, and verging from the extreme of restricted, to that of 
universal suffrage. The Convention, sensible of the very great stride which had been taken by the 
last vote, the next morning referred the whole matter to a Select Committee of thirteen, whose re- 
port was now under consideration. That Committee, thougli composed of gentlemen, a largo ma- 
jority of whom had voted for the proposition for universal suffrage, had now recommended a middle 
course, viz: the payment of a money tax, or lalior on the hijliway, excluding inilitica service, which 
had, however, been very propcvly reinstated. The question then recurred, shall an attempt be again 
made to add that of householder to the higliway qualification, and run the hazard of the rc-introduc- 
tion of the proposition of the gentleman from VVushington, abandoning all qualifications, and throw- 
ing open the ballot-boxes to every body — demolishing, at one blow, the distinctive character of an 
elector, the proudest and most invaluable attribute of freemen ?" 

FiXtract fro7)i the proceedings of Moadnij, October 8, 1821. 
QUALIFICATIONS OF COLORED PERSONS. 
[Page 374.] Mr. Platt moved to expunge the jiroviso in the first section, which dechires that no 
person, other than a white man, shall vote, unless he have a freehold estate of the value ui' two hun- 
dred and fifty dollars. 

[Page 376.] Mr. Van Buren said he had voted against a total and unqualified exclusion, for he 
would not draw a revenue from them, and yet deny to them the right of suffrage. But this proviso 
met his approbation. They were exempted from taxation until they had qualified themselves to vole. 
The right was not denied, to exclude au}^ portion of the community who will not exercise tlie right 
of suffrage in its purity. This held out inducements to industry, and would receive his support. 

[Page 377.] The question on striking out the proviso was then taken by ayes and noes, and decided 
as follows : 

FOR THE NEGATIVE. 
Mr. Baker, Mr. Howe, Mr. Reeve, Mr. Tallmadgc, 

Beckwith, Humphrey. Riciiards, Taylor, 

Bowman, Hunt, Rockwell, Ten Eyck, 

Breese, Hunter, Rose, Townlcv, 



Briggs, 

Burrouglis, 

Carpenter, 

Carver, 

Case, 

D, Clarke, 

Cramer, 

Dubois, 

Dyckman, 

Edwards, 

Fairlie, 

Fenton, 

Ferris, 

Frost, 

Mr. Bacon, 

Barlow, 

Birdseye, 

Brooks, 

Buel, 

Child, 

R. Clarke, 

Day, 

Duer, 

I certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing extracts from the printed book entitled " Re- 
ports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, assembled for the purpose of amend- 
ing the Constitution of the State of New-York, containing all the official documents relating to the 
subject, and other valuable matter, by Nathaniel H. Carter and William L. iStono, reporters, and 

Marcus T. C. Gould, stenographer, Albany — printed and published by E. & E. Ilosford, 1821" and 

that the preceding are faithful copies of the passages extracted, and of the whole of sucli passages. 
Albany, June 23, 1840. JOHN G. SPENCER. 

From the foregoing extracts it appears that Mr. Van Buren, as a member of the 
New- York Convention, supported a proposition which made the negro equal to tlie white 
man, as to the right of voting: That after settling that principle, he voted to annex the 
restriction of a freehold qualification to the negro voter : That he was of opinion that the 
*'invffJuable right of suffrage^' would be "cheapened " too much by being allowed to 
white men, who paid no tax and performed no militia duty, but who Avorkcd on the hioh- 
ways or public roads, unless they were " koi/seholdars :" That the ''invaluahle right of suf- 
frage^'' would NOT be " cheapened " at all by being allowed to negro freeholders : That 
some lohite men are not good enough, unless they are householders, to vote in any 
election ; but that every negro, owning a freehold estate of a given value, is good 
ENOUGH TO VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION. And we are asked to believe that these are 
"Southern principles T 



Hunting, 




Ross, 


Townspud, 


Hurd. 




Russ.dl, 


Tripp, 


Lansing, 




Sage, 


Tut tie, 


Lawrence, 




R. iSanford, 


VAN BUREN, 


A. Livings! 


ton, 


Schcnck, 


Van Fleet, 


P. R. Livin 


gston. 


.Seaman, 


Van Home, 


McCall, 




Seeley, 


Ward, 


Moore, 




Sliarpe, 


A. ^Vcbster, 


Nelson, 




Sheldon, 


^Vcndovcr, 


Park, 




I. Smith, 


N. Williams, 


Porter, 




R. Smith, 


Woods, 


Price, 




Stagg, 


Yates, 


Pumjielly, 




Starkweather, 


Young. — 71. 


Radclitf, 




Swift, 




FOR THE 


AFFIRMATIVE. 




Mr. Eastwood, 


Mr 


. Munro, 


Mr. Spencer, 


Fish, 




Paulding, 


Sylvester, 


Hees, 




Pitcher, 


Van Ness, 


Hogeboom, 




ftlatt, 


J. R. Van Rensselaor, 


Huntington 


1, 


Rliiiielandcr, 


S. Van Rensselaer, 


Jay, 




Root, 


Wheaton, 


Jones, 




Sanders, 


E. Williams, 


Kent, 




N. Sandford, 


Wooster.— 33. 



III. OPINIONS OF MR. VAN BUREN AND GENERAL HARRISON ON 
THE COMPETENCY OF NEGRO TESTIMONY AGAINST WHITE 
PERSONS. 

MR. VAN BUREN 

On the 27th of May, 1839, a Naval General Court-Martial assembled on board the 
United Slates Ship Macedonian, lying at Pensacola, to try Lieutenant George Mason 
Hooe, of Virginia, on certain charges preferred on the information of Commander Uriah 
P. Levy. In the course of the trial, two negroes were produced as witnesses against him ; 
one the cook, and the other the body servant of his accuser. He objected to their exami- 
nation; the Court overruled his objection, and allowed them to be examined. Lieutenant 
Hooe declined to cross-examine them. The proceedings of the Court were approved by the 
Secretary of the Navy. Lieutenant Hooe addressed a memorial to the President, in which 
he complained of the outrage. The President endorsed his decision on the papers in the 
following words: 

"The President finds NOTHING in the froceedings in the case of Lieutenant Hooe which 
REaUIRES HIS i.vterference. M. V. B." 

On the .12th of Jime, 1840, this subject was brought to the notice o{ Congress by the 
Hon. John M. Botts, a member of the House of Representatives from Virginia, and 
that body adopted a resolution calling on the Secretary of the Navy for a copy of the 



8 

reeord and of the subsequent proceedings. On the 24th of June the copy was transmitted, 
being Document No. 244, 'Z^th Congress, \st Session, House of Representatives, Navy 
Department. 

The following are extracts from the Document : 

[Page 22.] " Jaines Mitchell, Captain's Steward of the United States Ship Vandalia, called and 
Bwom. 

"The accused objected to the examination of the witness, upon the ground that he was a colored 
man. 

" The Court, after deliberation, did not consider the objection a valid one, and ordered the exami- 
nation fo proceed. 

" The accused then offered a paper writing, of which the following is a copy, and desired that the 
same be spread upon the record : 

"'The accused begs leave to state to the Court most distinctly that he solemnly protests against 
the evidence of this witness being received and recorded. It is far from the wish of the accused to 
object to any evidence which the Court may deem legal ; but the witness is a colored man, and there- 
fore, in the opinion of the accused, is not a competent witness, even before this tribunal. 

"'G. M. HOOE, Lieutenant U. S. Navy.'" 

[Page 23.] " The accused presented a paper writing, of which the following is a copy, and re- 
quested that the same be spread upon the recordP, which was ordered by the Court : 

"'The accused having protested against tlie evidence of this witness, on the ground that he con- 
ceives his testimony to be altogether illegal, that he knows it would be so considered before the civil 
tribunals of this Territory, the forms and customs of which, he humbly thinks, should be as closely 
followed by a martial court as possible ; therefore asks leave to spread upon the record the fact that 
he cannot consent to, and has totally declined cross-examining this witness. 

" ' GEORGE MASON HOOE, Lieut. U. S. Navy." 

[Page 25.] " Daniel Waters Captain's Cook of the United States Ship Vandalia, called and sv/orn. 

•' The accused presented a paper writing, of which the following is a copy, and requested that the 
same be spread upon the record, which was ordered : 

" ' The Court having decided to receive and record the testimony of colored persons, the accused, 
in regard to this witness, can only reiterate his objections as set forth in the case of Mitchell, the 
Captain's Steward. The accused will pursue the same course with this witness that he decided to 
take with the other colored man. 

'"GEORGE MASON HOOE, Lieut. U. S. Navy.'" 

[Page 42.] " At the close of the proceedings of the Court is the approval of the Secretary of 
the Navy, in these words : 

•"Approved. J.K.PAULDING.'" 

[Page 60-61.] Extract from the Letter or Memorial of Lieutenant Hooe to the Presi- 
dent of the United States. 
•' There is one other point in the proceedings of tlie Court (touching their legality) to which I in- 
Tite the particular attention of your Excellency. It respects a matter as to which all Southern men 
are deeply sensitive; and, if not overruled by your Excellency, will assuredly drive many valuable 
men from the Navy. In the progress of the proceedings of this Court, two negroes — one the cook, 
the other the private steward of Commander Levy — were introduced as witnesses against me. I 
protested against their legal competency to be witnesses in the Territory of Florida, on the ground 
that they were negroes. The Court disregarded my exception, and, as the record shows, they were 
allowed to be examined and to testify on my trial. This I charge as a proceeding illegal and erro- 
neous on the part of the Court ; and, if so, according to established law and precedent, must vitiate 
and set eiside their whole proceedings." 

[Page 61.] Letter from the Secretary of the Navy to the President. 

" Navy Department, December 14, 1839. 
"Sir : In obedience to your directions, I have the honor to transmit a report in the case of Lieu- 
tenant George Mason Hooe, and to return tiie memorial addressed to you by him, in relation to the 
proceedings of the Court on his trial. 

"I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. K. PAULDING." 

Endorsement on the above Letter by Martin Van Buren^ President of the United States, 

with his own hand. 
"THE PRESIDENT FINDS NOTHING IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF 
LIEUTENANT HOOE WHICH REQUIRES HIS INTERFERENCE. »M. V. B."* 

ANOTHER CASE.— CASE OF MR. MURCH. 
The following letter is from Oliver K. Barrell, Esq., a highly respectable citizen of 
Newcastle, Del, to Thomas Allen, Esq., Editor of the Madisonian. In a subsequent 

* While this decision of the President was unknown to the public, the Secretary of the Navy wrote 
a letter, dated April 15, 1840, which has since been pubhshed in Mr. Ritchie's "Crisis" of June 20, 
1840. In this letter the Sncretary, after justifying the examination of the negroes, and the sentence 
of the Court, says, " The Prasident had nothing to do with the Court or its proceedings 1 1 1 1 " 



letter, addressed to another gentleman, Mr. Barrell says: " Since the appearance of the 
article in the Madisonian, the counsel for Mr. March, Andrew C. Gray, Esq., who is a 
supporter of Mr. Van BurerHs administration^ has publicly vouched for its correctness, in 
all its essential particulars." 

Newcastle County, Del., August 3, 1840. 

Dear Sir : That the South may be informed correctly, in regard to Mr. Van Buren, I send you 
for publication certain facts in relation to his approval of negro testimony, in the trial of an officer in 
the revenue service, before tlie Collector of this District, in June, 1839. 

At that time charges and specifications of them were preferred by a certain Henry D. Nones, a 
Captain in the revenue cutter service, against Josiah Murch, then First Lieutenant in the same ser- 
vice. The Collector of the District, Henry Whiteley, Esquire, was ordered by the Secretary of the 
Treasury to conduct the examination. Mr. Murch was defended by counsel, and the prosecution in 
behalf of the Captain carried on by counsel employed by himself. The character of the testimony, 
on the part of the complainant, generally, was such, that the counsel for Mr. Murcli deemed it unne- 
cessary to enter upon any defence ; it was composed entirely of the crew and officers under the im- 
mediate command of the complainant, (Nones,) and of negroes, his own servants, employed in the 
ward. room. Five negroes, if I am correctly informed, were brought forward to testify. The moment 
the first was called to the stand, Mr. Murch and liis counsel (protesting against such evidence, it not 
being competent in the Courts of this State for negroes to testify against white persons) left the room. 
The Collector proceeded, however, to take the testimony, and, after closing the same, forwarded it to 
Washington ; the whole of which I presume you can find in the office of the Secretary of the Trea- 
sury. A copy of one of the negro depositions I now have before me. Mr. Murch had his commis- 
sion taken from him ; the testimony having been laid before the President and " approved by him." 
So unexpected was this decision to Mr. Murch, and indeed to every one who knew the character of 
the testimony adduced against him, that Mr. Murch thought it proper to appeal directly to the Presi- 
dent for reinstatement. He did so both personally and by letter. To impress more fully upon the 
minds of the powers that be at Washington the injustice done to him, Mr. Murcli forwarded to the 
Secretary of the Treasury a deposition of one of the negroes, taken at the negro's own request, after 
his discharge from the cutter, by a magistrate of the town of Newcastle, in which he states that 
what he testified to before Colonel Whiteley, the Collector, was false, " that he was compelled, by 
threats made by Captain Nones, to give such testimony," Sec, &c. Upon the receipt of this deposi. 
tion by Mr. Woodbury, the Secretary of the Treasury, he informed Mr. Murch, in substance, by 
letter, " that this testimony of the negro could not go to rebut his first deposition, but migiit be made 
the groundwork of new proceedings against Captain Nones" — (I have not the letter before me, and 
therefore merely give the substance) — to which Mr. Murch, under date of September 10, 1839, made 
the following reply, after acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Woodbury's letter of tJie Gth instant. He 
says : " I have to say that the affidavit of William Kork [negro] was sent to the Department not for 
the purpose of commencing now proceedings against Captain Nones, or any other person, but with 
the object of showing to the Department the character of the evidence on which my dismissal has 
been founded." Several letters were written to the Department and to the President, by the friends 
of Mr. Murch, and, I think, a formal remonstrance sent by his counsel to the Treasury Department. 
On the 4th of January, 1840, the Secretary of the Treasury wrote to me (who had addressed a letter 
directly to the President in regard to Mr. Murcli) as follows : " Sir, in reply to your letter of the 27th 
ultimo, to the President of the United States, which has been referred to this Department, I would 
inform you that Lieutenant Murcli was dismissed from the revenue service by the President, on satis- 
factory evidence of improper conduct, which, though the charges and proof have been once or twice 
re-examined, has never been satisfactorily rebutted or explained." 

These proceedings are now matter of record, or ought to be, in the Treasury Department; copies of 
most of which I took the precaution at the time to retain. If you think any good can be had by publish- 
ing it, please do so, and make whatever remarks you may think proper. 1 will only add that no officer, 
however high or honest, is safe for a moment, if the Government is to tolerate negroes, under the im- 
mediate control of an officer, to give testimony against another whom he has thought proper to prefer 
charges against. 

P. S. You will perceive that Woodbury was willing for Murch to make the deposition of the negro 
Kork sufficient ground to commence proceedings upon against Nones. 

Copies of letters from and to the Secretanj of the Treasury, in relation to Mr. MurcKs 

case. 

Treasury Departjient, September 6, 1839. 
Sir : Your letter of the 2d instant, enclosing the affidavit of William Kook, is this day received. I 
have to observe, in reply, that the affidavit of a person who admits he has been guilty of perjury cannot 
be made the ground of new proceedings, unless it is taken over again, with notice to the Collector and 
Captain Nones to appear before the magistrate and cross-examine that witness, as well as rebut his 
testimony by other evidence. 

I am, very respectfully, your ob't serv't, LEVI WOODBURY. 

Newcastle, Sept'r 10, 1839. 
Sir : I have had the honor to receive your favor of the 6th instant this day, and, in reply, have to 
say that the affidavit of William Kork was sent to the Department, not for the purpose of commencing 

2 



10 

new proceedings against Captain Nones, or any other person, but with the object of yhowing to lUfr 
Department the character of the evidence on which my dismissal has been founded. 

I have the honor to be, Sir, very respectfully, your obed't servant, JOSIAH MURCH, 

The Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury, U. S. of America. 

Treasury Department, Sept'r 9, 1839. 
Sir: The papers in your case having been submitted to the President, I have to inform you that ho 
does not yet feel satisfied that the public interest would be promoted by your reappointment. 
1 am, very respectfully, your ob't serv't, LEVI" WOODBURY, 

Sec'y of the Treas'y. 
JosiAH MuRCH, Esq., Newcastle, Delaware. 

Treasury Department, January 4, 1840. 
Sir : In reply to your letter of the 27th ultimo, to the President of the United States, which has 
been referred to this Dei)artmcnt, I would inform you that Lieutenant Murch was dismissed from the 
revenue service by the President, on satisfactory evidence of improper conduct, which, though the 
charges and proofs have been once or twice re-examined, has never been satisfactorily rebutted or 
explained. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, LEVI WOODBURY, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 
Oliver K. Barrell, Esq., Newcastle, Del. 

I, Ignatius Mudd, a citizen of Washington, in the District of Columbia, do hereby certify, that I 
have examined the foregoing printed copies of three letters from the Hon. Levi Woodbury, and that 
I have carefully compared the same with the origiuiils, and also that I have examined the foregoing 
printed copy of a letter signed Josiah iMurcli, and have compared the same with a manuscript purport- 
ing to be a copy of a letter from said iMurcli to said Woodbury,, and that the said four printed letters 
are tfue copies of said originals and said manuscript copy. 

I further certify, that in the letter from said Woodbury, dated Treasury Department, January 4, 
1840, the same being one of the aforesaid four letters, a horizontal lino is drawn through the word 
"satisfactory," and there is an appjarance on tlic face of the word of a purpose to erase it, though 
it still" remains perfectly legible. IGNATIUS MUDD. 

District of Co'lumbia, County of Washington, to wit : 

Be it remembered, that on tliis 23d day of September, 1840, Ignatius Mudd, well known to me as a 
respectable citizen of Washington, appeared before me, a Justice of the Peace in and for the said 
County, and made oath to the truth of the facts contained in the foregaing statement. 

DAVID A. Id ALL, Justice of the Peace, 

United States of America — Department of State. 
To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting; 

I certify, that D. A. ILiU, whose name is subscribed to the paper hereunto annexed, is now, and 
was at the time of subscribing the same, a Justice of the Peace tor the County of Waslunglou, in the 
District of Columbia, duly commissioned ; and that full faith and confidence are due to his acts, as such. 

In testimony whereof, 1, John Forsytli, Secretary of State of the United States, have hereunto sub- 
scribed my name, and caused the seal of tht; Department of State to be affixed. 

r. , Done at the City of Washington, this twenty-fourth day of September, A. D. 1840, and of 
'■ '■' tlie Independence of the United States of America llie sixty-fifth. 

_ JOHN FORSYTH. 

Ml". Van Buren then, Ikliiks it pcrfecUy proper that NEoiiOES should be examined 

AS WITNESSES AGAINST WHITE MEN ! ! ! 

Not SO General Harrison. In the Laws of the Indiana Territory, printed at Y'm- 
cennes, Indiana, by Messrs. Stout & Smoot, in 1807, and in the Library of the State De- 
partment, Washington City, is the following: 

[Chapter 46, page 311.] "An Act regulating the Practice in the General Court and Court of Com- 

man Pleas, and for other purposes. 
"Section 24. No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall be a witness, except in pleas of tiic United 
States against negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, or in civil pleas where negroes, mulattoes, or Indians 
alone shall be parties. JESSE B. THOMAS, Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

" B. CHAMBERS, President of the Council. 
"Approved, September 17, 1807. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON.'^ 



IV. MISSOURI aUESTION. 

Akin to the topics just mentioned is the conduct of the two candidates on the Missow, 



11 

MR. VAN BUREN'S COURSE. 

RuFus King was elected a member of the Senate of the United States for six years from 
March 4, 1813, by the votes of the old Federal party in New- York. During the last year 
of his term, a bill was sent to the Senate, from the House of Representatives, entitled " An 
act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Con,stitution and State 
Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing icith 
the original Slates." A proposition was introduced into the Senate to amend it by a clause 
prohibiting slavery, which proposition was sustained throughout by Rufus King. '' The 
substance" of two elaborate speeches from him, in favor of it, may be found in Niles's 
Register, vol. 17, pp. 215-221. 

in a letter dated April 22, 1820, to John Holmes, on the Missouri Question, Mr. Jef- 
ferson says : 

" I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to puMic aftairs, confident 
they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger incur bark to the shore from wJiich I am not 
<hstant. But this momentous question, like a fire hell in the night, awake/ied and filled me with 
terror. I considered it at once a-t the knell of the Union." — [Jefferso7i's Writings, vol. 4, p. 323.] 

In the winter of 1819-20, Mr. Van Buren, then a member of the Legislature of New- 
York, published a pamphlet in support of IMr. King's re-election, entitled ''Considerations 
in favor of the appointment of Rufus King to the Senate of the United States." He also 
addressed a letter to a friend, in which he says : 

"I should sorely regret to find any flagging on the subject of Mr. King. We are committed to his 
support. It is both wise and honest ; and we must have no fluttering in our course. Mr. King's views 
towards us are honorable and correct. The Missouri Question conceals, so far as he is concerned, no 
piot, and we shall give it a true direction. You know what the feelings and views of our friends were 
when I saw you, and you know what we tiion concluded to do. My ' Considerations,'' &c., and the 
aspect of the Albany Argus, will sliow you that we have entered on the work in earnest. We cannot, 
thurefpro, look back. Let us not, then, have any halting. I will put my head on its propriety."* 

Rufus King was accordingly re-elected to the Senate. The following preamble and 
resolution Avere adopted by both Houses of the Legislature of New- York: 

" Whereas the inhibiting of the further extension of slavery in these United States is a subject of 
deep concern to the people of this Slate ; and whereas we consider slavery as an evil much to be de- 
jilorcd, and tluit every constitutional barrier sliould be interposed to prevent its further extension ; and 
tliat the Constitution of the United States clearly giving Congress the right to require of new States, 
not comprehended within the original boundaries of the United States, the prohibiting of slavery as 
a condition of their admission into "the Union ; therefore, 

"Resolved, (if the honorable Senate concur therein,) That our Senators be instructed, and our Rep- 
resentatives in Congress be requested, to oppose the admission, as a State, into tlie Union, of any Ter- 
ritory not comprised as aforesaid, making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condi- 
tion of admission." 

On the 29th January, 1820, the .Scwa/^' took up the resolution, and passed the same 
unanimously, the following Senators being present: 

"Messrs. Adams, Austin, Barnum, Bartow, Browne, Cliilds, Dudley, Dayton, Ditmiss, Elvans, 
Forthington, Hammond, Hart, Livingtitoii, Loundsberry, McMartin, Moons, Mallory, Moore, Noycs, 
Paine, Ross, Rosencraiitz, Skinner, Swan, Van Buren, Wilson, Young— -20." 

The G/o/(<; says that the resolution, which had passed the House of Assembly, ''was 
sent to the Senate, of which Mr. Van, Buren was a member, and was there also passed, 
but without division or debate. Mr. Van Bin-en had no agency in bringing the sub- 



*This extract will be found in page 144 of a life of Mr. Van Buren, (publislied in 183.'),) written 
by ^V^illiam H. Holland, with the aid, lie tells us in the preface, of" the Hon. James Vandcrpocl" and 
••the flon. Benjamin F. Bntlor," two well-known partisans of Mr. Van Buren. The autlienticity of 
Holland's work is admitted by Mr. Van Buren. Messrs. W. Fithian, J. C. Alexander, and others, in 
a letter to him, dated Danville, Illinois, May :23, 1840, put several questions, one of which is: "Have 
yon examined Holland's life of Van Buren, of date of 1835 ; and, if so, is it a faithful and true his- 
tory of your political opinions?" Mr. Van Buren answers the letter, June 22, 1840, and says, in 
reference to Holland's life of him: "It has been suggested to me that spurious copies of this work 
have been put in circulation in Illinois ; it is therefore desirable that you should send mo the copy to 
wiiich your question relates, before I answer it. This I will thank you to do at your earliest convenience. 
When inspected, it shall be returned to you." — Niles's Register, vol. 58, page 364. On the 29th of 
August, 1840, Mr. Van Buren sends a further answer; at the close of which he says : "-The publica- 
tion .tent to me by Mr. Alexander is a genuine copy of the first edition of Professor Holland's work. 
I herewith return it, with the remark that it was written without communication with me, but con- 
tains, as far as it goes, a substantially correct history of my political course." 

The extract given in the text is published also in Niles's Register, vol. 49, page 93; the word 
"iorely" being omitted, and the word "coimnitted" being printed "submitted." 



12 

ject before the Legislature. He was present when it passed, but did not participate 
further in the matter than is here stated." — {Extra Globe, June 16, 1840.) The Rich- 
mond Enquirer (June 23 1840,) says: "Upon these resolutions he gave no vote, /or the 
Legislature was unanimous. They passed without a division or count." 

We are willing to take, as true history, either of these official expositions; to admit 
with the Globe that Mr. Van Buren had only the same agency, in passing the resolutions, 
which every body else had who voted for them ; or to agree with the more ingenious 
Enquirer, that Mr. Van Buren voted, not as an individual, but only as a Senator. 

In "Holland^s Life of Van Buren,''^ edition 1835, page 146-147, authenticated, as 
has been already shown, by Mr. Van Buren, the writer, after referring to a recommenda- 
tion of Governor Clinton, at the opening of the session, in January, 1820, of the Legisla- 
ture of New- York, says: 

" In compliance with this recommendation, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution, in- 
structing their Senators, and requesting the Representatives of the State, in Congress, ' to oppose the 

ADMISSION, AS A StaTE, IN THE UniON, OF ANV TERRITORY NOT COMPRISED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARY 

OF THE United States, without making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condi- 
tion OF admission.' " 

" The Senate concurred in this resolution without division or debate, and among them Mr. Van Bu- 
ren; though it was not brought before the Legislature by his agency, still he must be regarded as 
HAVING CONCURRED, at that time, in the sentiment of the resolution thus adopted by the legisla- 
ture." 

It thus appears that Mr. Van Buren was the champion of the re-election of the great 
champion of the Missouri restriction; staked his head on its '^propriety;" denounced 
any "flagging," '[fluttering,^' or "halting,'' in sending Mr. King to the Senate again, to 
ring the ''knell of the Union ;" and after having procured the re-election of Mr. King, 
to make assurance doubly sure, joined in instructing him to peal that fearful alarm. 

What, on this subject, was General Harrison's course.'' When the Missouri ques- 
tion was agitated in the House of Representatives, at the session of 1818-1819, (second 
session, fifteenth Congress,) he was a member of that House from Ohio, a non-slaveholding 
State. The agitation of that question shook, as is well known, the Union to its centre. 
On reference to the Journal of the House of Representatives, (page 271-274, &c., &c.,) 
it will be found that on the motion to prohibit the further introduction of slavery into Mis- 
souri, and on the other questions growing out of that motion, General Harrison voted 
with the South. His course, on this momentous subject, prevented his re-election to Con- 
gress, when he again became a candidate. The National Intelligencer, of October 20, 
1 822, says : 

" It is confirmed to us that Mr. Gazely is elected, in opposition to General Harrison. A friend in- 
forms us, which we are sorry to learn, that he was opposed particularly on account of his adherence 
to that principle of the Constitution which secures to the people of the South their pre-existing 
rights." 

V. THE ARKANSAS AND FLORIDA QUESTIONS. 

GENERAL HARRISON'S COURSE ON THE ARKANSAS QUESTION. 

On the 18th of February, 1819, a bill for establishing a separate Territorial Govern- 
ment in the southern part of the Territory of Missouri, was, with certain amendments 
which had been made thereto, taken up in the House of Representatives. Mr. 'Taylor, of 
New- York, moved a further amendment, ''that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude 
shall be introduced into the said Territory, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, 
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." 

On this amendment, General Harrison voted with the South. — [See Journal House 
of Representatives, 2d Session I5th Congress, 1818-19, ^a^e 283-'4.] 

MR. VAN BUREN'S COURSE ON THE FLORIDA QUESTION. 
On the 6th of February, 1822, a bill was reported to the Senate of the United States 
for the establishment of a Territorial Government in Florida. On the 6th of March, 
1822, after various intervening proceedings, the Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
Whole, the consideration of the bill for the establishment of a Territorial Government 
in Florida; and, the bill having been amended, it was reported to the House accordingly. 
It was moved to strike out a provision which prohibited the introduction of slaves into the 
Florida Territory, except by citizens of the United States removing thither, and owning 



13 

such slaves at the time of removal, or by citizens of the United States, travelling in the 
Territory with not more than two servants. Mr. Van Buren voted in the negative. 

It thus appears that Mr. Van Buren voted against striking out the restriction on slavery 
in the Territory of Florida. The prkciple of this restriction, and of the restriction in the 
case of Arkansas, was the same as that involved in the Missouri question. 
Certified copies of the Votes of Gen. Harrison and Mr. Van Buren, referred to in 

the two foregoing sections. 

On the 16th February, 1819," the House took up and proceeded to consider the amend- 
ments reported from the Committee of the Whole, to the bill to authorize the people of 
the Territory of Missouri to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admis- 
sion of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States ; and the 
said amendments, being read, were concurred in by the House, w^ith the exception of that 
to the end of the 4th section, which prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude in the pro- 
posed State ; which said amendment being amended to read as follows : 

"And provided, also, That the further introdvciion of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohi- 
hited, except for the. punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted; and that all chil- 
dren of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, but 
may he held to service until the age of twenty-five years. 

" Mn Beeclier moved further to amend the said amendment, by striking out all thereof after the 
word convicted; which motion was rejected. 

" A division of the question to agree to the said amendment was then called for, and the question 
was put to agree to so much thereof as is contained within the same, to the word convicted, inclusive, 
and passed in the affirmative : Yeas 87, Nays 76. 

" The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted in the 
affirmative are — 

"Messrs. Adams, Allen, Anderson, Pa., Barber, O., Bateman, Beecher, Bennett, Boden, Campbell, 
Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folgcr, Fuller, Gage, Gilbert, Hale, 
Hall, Del., Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkinson, Hostetter, 
Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, N. Y., Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, 
W. Maclay, W. F. Maclay, Marchand, Mason, R. 1., Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, 
Morton, Moscley, Murray, Jer. Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pitkin, Rice, Rich, 
Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Sergeant, Sherwood, Silsbee, 
Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, 
Westerlo, Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams, Con., Williams, N. Y., Wilson, Mass., Wilson, Pa. — 87. 

" Those who voted in the negative are — 

" Messrs. Abbott, Anderson, Ken., Austin, Ball, Barbour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Bloorafield, Blount, 
Bryan, Burwell, Butler, Lou., Cobb, Colston, Cook, Cruger, Culbreth, Davidson, Desha, Edwards, 
Ervin, S. C, Fisher, Garnett, Hall, N. C, HARRISON, Holmes, Johnson, Va., Johnson, Ken., 
Jones, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane, Del., McLean, III., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mast., Middleton, 
H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, 
Pleasants, Poindexter, Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, 
S. Smith, Bal. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart, JV. C, Storrs, Stuart, Md., 
Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va., Tucker, «. C, Tyler, Walker, N. C, Walker, Ken., Williams, N. C— 76. 

" The question was then put upon agreeing to the residue of the said amendment, and also passed 
in the affirmative : Yeas 82, Nays 78. 

" The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted in the 
affirmative are — 

" Messrs. Adams, Allen, Mass., Anderson, Pa., Barber, O., Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Clagett, 
Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall, 
Del,, Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkinson, Hostetter, Hubbard, 
Hunter, Huntington, Irving, N. Y., Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. 
P. Maclay, Marchand, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jer. 
Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pitkin, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Samp- 
son, Savage, Scudder, Sergeant, Sherwood, Silsbee, S. Smith, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Taylor, 
Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams, Con., Wil- 
Hams, N. Y., Wilson, Mass., Wilson, Pa.— 82. 

" Those who voted in the negative are — 

" Messrs. Abbott, Anderson, Ken., Austin, Ball, Barbour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, Bloom- 
field, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler, Lou., Campbell, Cobb, Colston, Cook, Cruger, Culbreth, David- 
son, Desha, Edwards, Ervin, 5". C, Fisher, Garnett, Hall, N. C, HARRISON, Holmes, Johnson, Va., 
Johnson, Ken., Jones, Lewis, Linn, Little, Lowndes, McLean, III., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mass., 
Mason, R. I., Middleton, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, 
Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Poindexter, Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, 
Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, Bal. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart, N. C, Storrs, 
Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va., Tucker, S. C, Tyler, Walker, N. C, Walker, Ken., 
Williams, N. C— 78. [House Journal 1818-'19, pp. 271-274.] 

On the 18th of February, 1819, the following proceedings, in regard to the Territory 
of Arkansas, were had in the House of Representatives ; 



14 

" The House took up and proceeded to consider tlie aiiiendnients reported from llie Comniittue of 
tlie Whole, to the bill establishing a separate Territorial Goveniiiieiit in the soutliorn part of the Ter- 
ritory of Missouri ; and the said amendments, having been read, were concurred in by tlie House. 

" Mr. Taylor then moved further to amend the said bill, by inserting the following as the second 
section thereof: 

'^ And be it further enacted, That neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall be introduced into 
the said Territory, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
duly convicted. And all children horn of slaves, within the said Territory, shall be free, but may be 
held to service until the age of twenty-five years. 

" A division of tiie question, to agree to the said amendment, was called for ; and the question was 
put on so mucli thereof as is contained within the same, down to the word convicted, inclusive, and 
determined in the negative: Yeas 70, Nays 71. 

" Tlie yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted in the 
affirmative are — 

" Messrs. Adams, Allen, Mass., Anderson, Pa., Barber, O., Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, Com- 
stock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Folger, Fuller, Hall, Del., Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Her- 
rick, Hiester, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, N. Y., Lawyer, Lincoln, 
Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Mason, R. I., Merrill, Robert Moore, Saiu- 
uel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jer. Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Rice, 
Ricii, Riciiards, Rogers, Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Soudder, Seybert, Sherwood, Southard, Spencer, 
Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Wallace, Wendover, Whiteside, Williams, 
Con., Williams, N. Y., Wilson, Pa.— 70. 
■ "Those who voted in the negative are — 

" Messrs. Anderson, Ken., Austin, Ball, Barbour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, Bloomfield, Blount, 
Bryan, Burwell, Butler, Lou., Cobb, Cook, Crawford, Culbreth, Desha, Earl, Edwards, Garnott, Hall, 
N. C, HARRISON, Hogg, Holmes, Johnson, Va., Johnson, Ke7i., Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, Little, 
Lowndes, McLane, Del, McLean, ///., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mass., II. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, 
New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pcgram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Porter, Quarles, Reed, Ga., 
Rhea, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, 
■Speed, Stewart, N. C, Storrs, Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va., Tucker, S. C, Tyler, 
Walker, N. C, Williams, N. C.—71. 

" The question was then put to agree to the residue of the said amendment, and passed in the 
affirmative : Yeas 75, Nays 73. 

" The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of tlie members present, those who voted in the 
affirmative are — 

'* Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Pa., Barber, Ohio, Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, Comstock, Crafts, 
•Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gilbert, Hall, Del., Hasljrouck, Hendricks, 
Herrick, Hiester, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, N. Y., Ki.tland, 
Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Merrill, Mills, Robert 
.Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jeremiah Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, 
Pawling. Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Seiuiyler, Scudder, Seybert, Sher- 
wood, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Wallace, Wendover, 
Westerlo, Whiteside, Williams, Con., Williams, N. C, Williams, N. Y., Wilson, Pa.— 75. 

"Those who voted in the negative are — 

" Messrs. Abbott, Anderson, Ky., Austin, Ball, Baibour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, Bloomfield, 
Slount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler, La., Cobb, Cook, Crawford, Cruger, Culln-eth, Desha, Earl, Edwards, 
*Garnett, Hall, N. C, HARRISON, Hogg, Holmes, Johnson, Va., Jolinson, Ki/., Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, 
liittle, Lowndes, McLane, Del., McLean, III., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mass., Middloton, H. Nelson, 
'T. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Quarles, 
^eed, Md., Reed, Ga., Rhea, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Siinkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Alex. 
• Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart, N. C, Storrs, Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va„ 
Tucker, 5'. C, Tyler, Walker, N. C— 73." 

Office, Ho. Reps, of the U. S., Washington, iSe^^emier 9, 1840. 

This is to certify that the foregoing writing, on seven pages of paper, is a true extract from the 
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States on the 16th and 18th days of February, 
1819. This certificate is given at the request of the Hon. John C. Clark, now a member of the 
House of Representatives from the State of New-York. 

H. A. GARLAND, Clerk Ho. Reps. U. S. 
Eztr act from the Journal of the Senate at the First Session of the Seventeenth Congress, 

Wednesday.^ March 6, 1 822. 

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill "xjr the establish- 
ment of a Territorial Government in Florida ; and the bill having been amended, it was reported to 
the House accordingly ; and. 

On the question to concur in the amendment to the 11th section, to strike out, after the word " free- 
dom," in the 14th line thereof, the residue of said section, as follows: 

" No slave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be introduced into the said Territory, except by a 
citizen of the United States removing into the said Territory for actual settlement, and being, at the 
time of such removal, bona fide owner of such slave or slaves ; or any citizen of the United States 
travelling into the said Territory with any servant or servants, not exceeding two ; and every slave 
imported or brought into the said Territory, contrary to the provisions of this act, shall thereupon be 
«atilled to and recuive his or her lieedoui." 



15 

It was determined in the affirmative : Yeas 23, Nays 20. 

On motion of Mr. Mills, 

The yeas and nays being desired by one-fiflh of the Senators present. 

Those who voted in the affirmative are : 

Messrs. Barbour of Va., Benton, Brown of La., D'Wolf, Eaton, Elliott, Gaillard, Holmes of Miss,, 
Johnson of Ky., Johnson of La., King of Ala., Lloyd, Macon, Noble, Pleasants, Smith, Southard, 
Stokes, Van Dyke, Walker, Ware, Williams of Miss., Williams of Tenn. 

Those who voted in tiie negative are: 

Messrs. Barton, Boardman, Brown of Oliio, Chandler, Dickerson, Fmdlay, Holmes of Me., King 
of N. Y., Knight, Lauman, Lowrie, Mills, Morril, Otis, Palmer, Parrot, Rugglcs, Seymour, Thomas, 
VAN BUREN. 

Office of the Ci.erk of the H. R. of the U. S., Washington, ) 

September 11, 1840. S 

I do hereby certify that the foregoing, purporting to be an extract from the Journal of the Senate 
of the United Status, has been truly and correctly copied therefrom. 

HORATIO N. CRABB, Ass't Clerk Ho. Reps. U. S. 



VI. ABOLITIONISM. 

Enough appears in the foregoing pages to show that General Harrison is not an 
abolitionist. The following remarks were made by him before he was a candidate for 
the Presidency: 

Extracts of General Harriso7i's speech at Cheviot, Ohio, July 4, 1833. 

There is, however, a subject now beginning to agitate them, [the Southern States,] in relation to 
which, if their alarm has any foundation, the relative situation in which they may stand to some of 
the States will be the very reverse to what it now is. I allude to a supposed disposition in some in- 
dividuals in the non-slaveholding States to interfere with the slave population of the other States, for 
the purpose of forcing their emancipation. I do not call your attention to this subject, fellow -citi. 
zens, from the apprehension that there is a man among you who will lend his aid to a project so preg- 
nant with mischief, and still less that there is a State in the Union which could be brought to give it any 
countenance. But such are the feelings of our Southern brethren upon this subject — such their views, 
and their just views, of the evils which an interference of this kind would bring upon them, that 
long before it would reach the point of receiving the sanction of a State, the evil of the attempt 
would be consummated, as far as we arc concerned, by a dissolution of the Union. Jf there is any 
principle of the Constitution of the United States less disputable than any other, it is, that the slave 
population is under the exclusive control of the States which possess them. If tliere is a,ny measure 
likely to rivet the chains and blast the prospects of the negroes for emancipation, it is the interference 
of unauthorized persons. Can any one who is acquainted with the operations of the human mind 
doubt this ? We have seen how restive our Southern brethren have been, from a supposed violation 
of their political rights. What 7nust be the consequence of an acknowledged violation of these rights, 
(for every man of sense must admit it to be so,) conjoined with an insulting interference with their 
domestic concerns ? 

Shall I be accused of want of feeling for the slave, by these remarks? A further examinatioii 
will elucidate the matter. / take it for granted that no one rcill say that either the Government of 
the United States or those of the non-slaveholding States can interfere in any way with the right of 
property in the slaves. Upon whom, then, are the effijrts of the misguided and pretended friends of 
the slaves to operate ? It must be cither on the Governments of the slaveholding States, the indivi- 
duals who hold them, or upon the slaves themselves. What are to bo the arguments, what the means, 
by which they are to influence the two first of these ? Is there a man vain enough to go to the land 
of Madison, of Macon, and of Crawford, and tell them that they either do not understand the princi- 
ples of the moral and political rights of man ; or that, understanding, tliey disregard them ? Can they 
address an argument to the interest or fears of the enlightened population of the slave States, that has 
not occurred to themselves a thousand and a thousand times? To whom, then, are they to address 
themselves but to the slaves ? And what can bo said to them, that will not lead to an indiscriminate 
slaughter of every ago and sex, and ultimately to their own destruction ? Should there he an incar- 
nate devil who has imagined with approbation such a catastrophe to his fellow-citizens as I have de. 
scribed, let him look to those for whose benefit he loould produce it. Particular sections of the country 
may be laid waste, all the crimes that infuriated man, under the influence of all the black passions 
of his nature, can commit, may be perpetrated for a season ; the tides of the ocean, however, will no 
more certainly change, than that the flood of horrors will be arrested, and turned upon those who 
may get it in motion. 

/ vnll not stop to inquire into the motives of those who are engaged in this fatal and unconstitu- 
tional project. There may be some who have embarked in it without properly considering its conso- 
qnences, and who are actuated by benevolent and virtuous principles. But, if sueh there are, I am 
very certain that, should they continue their present course, their fellow-citizens will, ere long, ' curse 
the virtues which have undone their country.' 

Should I be asked if there is no way by which the General Government can aid the cause of 
emancipation, I answer, that it has long been an object ncax my heart to eee the whole of its surplus 



16 

revenue appropriated to that object. With the sanction of the States holding the slaves, there appears 
to me to be no constitutional objection to its being thus applied ; embracing not only the colonization 
of tliose that may be otherwise freed, but the purchase of freedom of others. By a zealous prosecu- 
tion of a plan formed upon that basis, we might look forward to a day, not very distant, when a North 
American sun would not look down upon a slave. To those who have rejected the plan of coloniza- 
tion, I would ask, if they have well weighed the consequences of emancipation without it ? How 
long would the emancipated negroes remain satisfied with that ? Would any one of the Southern 
States then (the negroes armed and organized) be able to resist their claims to a participation in all 
their political rights ? Would it even stop there ? Would they not claim admittance to all the social 
rights and privileges of a community in which, in some instances, they would compose the majority ? 
Let those who take pleasure in the contemplation of such scenes as must inevitably follow, finish 
out the picture. 

If I am correct in the principles here advanced, I support my assertion^ that the discussion on the 
subject of emancipation in the non-slaveholditig States, is equally injurious to the slaves and their 
masters, and that it has no sanction in the principles of the Constitution. I must not be understood 
to say, that there is any thing in that instrument which prohibits such discussion. I know there is 
not. But the man who believes that the claims which his fellow-citizens have upon him are satis- 
fied by adhering to the letter of the political contract that connect them, must have a very imperfect 
knowledge of the principles upon which our glorious Union was formed, and by which alone it can 
be maintained. I mean tliose feelings of regard and affection which were manifested in the first 
dawn of our Revolution, which induced every American to think that an injury inflicted upon his 
fellow-citizen, however distant his location, was an injury to himself; which made us, in effect, one 
people, before we had any paper contract; which induced the venerable Shelby, in the second war 
for independence, to leave the comforts which age required, to encounter the dangers and privations 
incident to a wilderness war ; which drew from the same quarter the innumerable battalions of volun- 
teers which preceded and followed hun ; and from the banks of the distant Appamattox, that band 
of youthful lieroes, which has immortalized the appellation by which it was distinguished. Those 
worthy sons of immortal sires did not stop to inquire into the alleged injustice and immorality of the 
Indian war. It was sufficient for them to learn their fellow-citizens were in danger, that the toma- 
hawk and scalping-knife were suspended over the heads of the women and children of Ohio, to in- 
duce them to abandon the ease, and, in many instances, the luxury and splendor by which from 
infancy they had been surrounded, to encounter the fatigues and dangers of war, amidst the horrors 
of a Canadian winter. 

In 1835, after he was nominated for the Presidency, General Harrison delivered 
the speech at Vincennes, Indiana, which we have before cited, and which the Abolitionists 
call " infamous.^^ The following is extracted from it: 

Extracts from General Harrison^ s speech at Vincennes, Indiana, July 4, 1835. 
I have now, fellow-citizens, a few words more to say on another subject, and which is, in my 
opinion, of more importance than any other that is now in the course of discussion in any part of 
the Union. I allude to the societies which have been formed, and the movements of certain indi- 
viduals, in some of the Slates, in relation to a portion of the population in others. The conduct of 
these persons is the more dangerous, because their object is masked under the garb of disinterested, 
ness and benevolence ; and their course vindicated by arguments and propositions which, in the ab- 
stract, no one can deny. But however fascinating may be the dress with which their schemes are 
^presented to their fellow-citizens, with whatever purity of intention they may have been formed and 
rsustained, they will be found to carry in their train mischief to the whole Union, and horrors to a 
large portion of it, which it is probable some of the projectors and many of their supporters have 
never thought of; the latter, the first in the series of evils which are to spring from this source, are 
such as you have read of to have been perpetrated on the fair plains of Italy and Gaul by the Scy- 
thian hordes of Attila and Alaric; and such as most of you apprehended upon that memorable night, 
•when the tomahawks and war-clubs of the followers of Tecumseh were rattling in your suburbs. I 
, regard not the disavowals of any such intention on the part of the authors of these schemes, since, 
■upon examination of the publications which have been made, they will be found to contain every 
fact and every argument which would have been used if such had been their objects. I am certain 
that there is not in this assembly one of these deluded men, and that there are few within the bounds 
>of the State. If there are any, I would earnestly entreat them to forbear, to pause in their career, 
and deliberately consider the consequences of their conduct to the whole Union, to the States more 
immediately interested, and to those for whose benefit they profess to act. That the latter will be 
the victims of the weak, injudicious, presumptuous, and unconstitutional efforts to serve them, a 
rtborough examination of the subject must convince them. The struggle (and struggle there must be) 
may commence with horrors such as I have described, but it will end with more firmly riveting the 
■chains, or in the utter extirpation of those whoso cause they advocate. Am I wrong, fellow. citizens, 
in applying the terms weak, presumptuous, and unconstitutional, to the measures of the emancipators ? 
A slight examination will, I think, show that I am not. In a vindication of the objects of a conven- 
tion which was lately held in one of the towns of Ohio, which I saw in a newspaper, it was said that 
nothing more was intended than to produce a state of public feeling which would lead to an amend- 
ment of the Constitution, authorizing the abolition of slavery in the United States. Now, can an 
amendment of the Constitution be effected without the consent of the Southern States ? What, then, 
is the proposition to be submitted to them ? It is this : The present provisions of the Constitution 
secure to you the right (a right which you h«ld before it was made, and whicji you have never given 



17 

up) fo manage your domnKlic consTiis in your own w;iv ; Imt ns ui- aiy couvincjd thai you do not 
manage thein properly, we want you to put in tlie liantls of the (ieneral Government, in the councils 
of which we have tlie uiajonty, the control over these matters, the effect of which will be virtually 
to transfer the power from yours into our hands. Again, in some of the Statf^s, and in sections of 
others, the black population fjr exceeds that of the white. Some the emancipators propose an im- 
mediate abolition. What is the proposition, then, as it regards those States and parts of States, but 
the alternatives of amalgamation with the blacks, or an exchange of situations with thern ? Is there 
any man of cotmnon syns'^ who does not believe tliat tlie emancipated blacks, being a majority, will 
not insist upon a full participation of political rights with the whites, and, when possessed of these, 
that they will not contend for a full share of social rights also ? What but the extremity of weakness 
and folly could induce any one to think that such propositions as thi^so could be listened to by a peo. 
pie so intelligent as those of the Southern States ! Further, the emanciptitors generally dechire that 
it is their intention to effect their object (although their acts contradict the assertion) by no other 
means than b)'- convincing the slaveholders th it the immediate emancipation of the slaves is called 
for both by moral obligation and sound policy. An unfledged youth at the moment of his leaving 
(indeed, in many instances before he has loft if) his Theological Seminary, undertakes to give lec- 
tures upon morals to the countrymen of Wythe, Tuck; r, Pendleton, and Lowndes, and lessons of 
political wisdom to States whose affairs have so recently been directed by Jefferson and Madison, 
Macon and Crawford. Is it possible that instances of greater vanity and presumption could be ex. 
hibitsd ? 

But the course pursued by the ewancipalors is unronstitutiorial. I do not say that thci'e are any 
words in the constitution whicli forbid such discussions as they say they are engaged in. I know 
that there are not. And there is even an- article which secures to the citizens the right to express 
and publish their opinions without restriction. But in tiie coiistructioa of the constitution it is al- 
ways necessary to refer to the circumstances under which it was franii'd, and to ascertain its meaning 
by a comparison of its provisions with each other, and with the previous situation of the several 
States who were parties to it. In a portion of these slavery was recognised, and they took care to 
have the right secured to them to follow and reclaim such of them as were fugitives to other States. 
The laws of Congress passed under this power liave provided punishment to any who shall oppose or 
interrupt the exercise of this right. Now, can any one boliava that the instrumrnt which contains a 
provision of this kind, which authorizes a master to pursue his slave into another State, take him back, 
and provides a punishment for any citizen or citizens of that .State who should oppose him, should at 
the same time authorize the latter to assemble together, to pass resolutions and adopt addn sses, not 
only to encourage the slaves to leave their masters, but to cut their throats before they do so ? I 
insist that, if the citizens of the non-slaveholding States can avail themselves of the article of the 
constitution which prohibits the restriction of speech or of the press, to publish any thing injurious 
to the rights ot the slaveholding States, they can go to the extreme thati have mentioned, and effoct 
any thing further which writing or speaking could effi^'ct. But, fellow-citizens, these are viot the 
principles of the constitution. Such a construction would defeat one of the great objects of its for- 
mation, which was that of securing the peace and harmony of the States which were parlies to it. 
The liberty of speech and of the press were given as tlu; most effectual means to preserve to each and 
every citizen their own rights, and to the States the rights which appertained to them at the time of 
its adoption. 

It could never have been expected that it would be used by the citizens of one portion of the States 
for the purpose of depriving those of another portion of the rights which they had reserved at the 
adoption of the constitution, and in the exercise of whic^i none but themselves have any concern or 
interest. If slavery is an evil, ('ind no one more readily acknowledges it than I do,) the evil is with 
them. If there is guilt in it, the guilt is theirs, not ours, since tipither tlie Stales icliere it does not 
exist, nor the Government of the United States, can, without usurpation of power a/id the violation of 
a solemn compact, do any thinff to remove it without the consent of those who are immediately interested. 
With that consent, there is not a man in the whole world who would more willingly contribute his 
aid to accomplish it than I would. If my vote could effect it, every surplus dollar in the Treasury 
should be appropriated to that object. But they will neither ask for aid nor consent to be aided, so 
long as the illegal, persecuting, and dangerous inoveinents are in progress of which I complain; the 
interest of all concerned requires that these should be iinmediat(dy stopped. This can only be done by 
the force of public opinion, and that cannot too soon be brought into operation. Every movement 
which is made by the abolitionists in the non-slaveholding States is viewed by our Southern brethren 
as an attack upon their rights, and which, if persisted in, must in the end eradicate those ft;elings of 
attachment and affection between the citizens of all tlie States which were produced by a community 
of interests and dangers in the war of the Revolution, which was the foundation of our happy Union, 
and by a continuance of which it alone can be preserved. I entreat you, then, fellow-citizens, to 
frown upon the measures which are to produce results so much to be deprecated. The opinions 
which I have now given, I have omitted no opportuniiy for the last two years to lay before the peo- 
ple of my own State. I have taken the liberty to express them hero, knowing that, even if they 
should unfortunately not accord with yours, they would be kindly received. 

If additional evidence of General Harrison's hostility to abolitionism were wanted, 
we need only look to the facts that he is denounced, in terms of unsparing vituperation, by 
the Abolition presses; and that the Abolitionists, at a Convention held in Albany on the 
first of April last, nominated James G. Birney, of New- York', as their candidate for the 
Presidency, and Thomas Earle, of Pennsylvania, {a zealous partisan of Mr. Van Bu- 
ren,) as their candidate for the Vice- Presidency. Mr. Gerritt Smith, the pride and 
3 



!8 

boast of the Abolitionists, is now a candidate, and, ns is wpII understood, the Van Buren 
candidate, for the office of Governor of the State of New- York. Let Southern men listen 
to another partisan of Mr. Van Buren, and one of his right-hand men in the Senate of 
the United States — the notorious Benjamin Tappan. This man published a book of 
Reports, entitled " Tappan's Reports." One of the cases reported is that of Barrett vs. 
Jarvis, page 212. It was a slander suit. The slander charged was, that one man had 
said of another, that he was " akin to negroes." Tappan, in delivering the opinion of the 
Court, said : 

" If the action dons not lie for imputing a want of moral virtue, can it lie for imputing a consan- 
guinity with any particular race of men ? for saying of another, tliat lie has a drop of African blood 
in his veins ' that he is of kin, in some degree, remote or near, to the negroes — to that race of men 
who have been, for ages, the victims of a bloody and unrelenting avarice, and who are bound down 
to the ground, and trodden under foot by oppression, so wide and so enormoits, that no man can for 
a moment contemplate their situation without the deepest commiseration and horror— commiseration 
for their sufforings, and hoiTor at the immense mass of wickedness and crime which holds them in 
subjection ? 

" I know of no principle of ethics or law which would forbid a descendant of the fair-haired and 
ruddy Teutono from marrying the swarthy native of Africa." 

The following is an extract of a letter from Mr. James Collier, of Steubenville, 
Ohio : 

"In the conversation alluded to, Judge Tappan observed, 'that as he was returning from Columbus, 
he was waited upon at Zanesville, by a Committee from the State Abolition Society, then in session 
at Putnam, with a request that he would accept some a])pointment, or some office, (what particular 
office I do not now recollect,) fi^om the Society.' The Judge stated that he declined, and assigned as 
a reason, that he disapproved of the course they were taking ; ' but,' said he, ' I told them if they 
wanted five hundred dollars to purchase arms and ammunition, to put into the liands of the blacks, 
that they might free themselves, I would give them the money.' I then ask:^d him if ho had refli^cted 
upon the consequences of such a step ; that insurrection would be the inevitable result, and that he 
might thereby put in peril the lives of his connexions and neighbors. He inquired how ? To which 
I replied, that the President was bound, by his oath of office, to suppress insurrections, and, to do 
that, was authorized to call out tlie whole armed force of the country. He remarked, that the Presi- 
dent would do no such thing. To this I replied, that the President had ordered the troops to South- 
ampton, and would do it again, if necessary. I then said, ' Judge, I think I can put you a case 
where you would go yourself.' ' Let me hear your cass. Colonel,' said he. ' Suppose sir,' 1 observed, 
'that the County of Brooke, opposite to us, in Virginia, contained a dense population of slaves; that 
they should rise up against their masters, and that you should be standing with your neighbors on 
one side of the river, and see thorn marching down on the other side, burning and destroying every 
thing within their reach, and murdering, without distinction, men, women, and children, and that 
our friends and acquaintances should call upon us for assistance, would not you go?' 'No, by God,' 
said he, ' I would not, and would disinherit any child I have that would go !' " 

Mr. J. H. Hallock, in a letter, says: 

" He [Tappan] habitually denounced slavery and slaveholders. His expressions were very strong, 
such as — 'that the slaves ought to rise and cut their masters' throats;' 'if they [the slaves] should 
rise, he would not aid in subduing them, but would rather aid them.' " 

Mr. D. S. Collier, in a letter dated March 6, 1S40, confirms the statements of Mr. 
Hallock and Mr. James Collier. D. S. Collier says: 

"In a conversation between the Judge [Tap])an] and a gentleman then resident of this place, but 
now of Baltimore, on the subject of slavery, this case was presented to the Judge : ' Suppose, sir, 
we should see the slaves rising against their masters, on the opposite side of the river, (Virginia,) and 
about to succeed in subduing them, or in cutting their throats, would you not interfere to prevent this, 
and save their lives ?' To which he replied, in substance, ' that if he interfered at all, it would be to 
supply the slaves with ammunition.'" 

Mr. Stanly, a Representative in Congress from North-Carolina, in a speech delivered 
by him in the House of Representatives on the 13th April, 1S40, said that he had in his 
possession the original letters of the Messrs. Colliers and Mr. Hallock, and ''dared any 
supporter of this Administration to contradict them." No contradiction was made. In 
confirmation of the statements of those gentlemen, Mr. Stf^nly read an extract of a letter, 
published in September, 1837, (before Tappan was in Congress,) written by Mr. James 
Mears, "a Van Buren man^ The extract is as follows: 

" There is another thing. I consider him the worst kind of an abolitionist, as he holds to doctrines 
the most mischievous and absurd on the subject of slavery. I believe it could be proved that he has 
said he would give five hundred dollars to purchase arms to put in the hands of the slaves to free 
themselves ; and that they ought to cut their masters' throats. He has also said, if the slaves were 
butchering men, women, and children, on the opposite side of the river, he would not lift a finger to 
rescue them ; and that he would disinherit a son who would offer to goto their relief. Now, although 
not an advocate for slavery, I would not support aii.y man for office, who entertains such inhuman 
feelings and opinions as these.' 



19 

Let us now hear Alexander Duncan, a rabid Van Bln•cnill^ and the Tappan of the 
House of Representatives. This man, in a letter dated September 1 5, 1 S38, and published 
ill the Globe, says of slavery: 

" It is an evil that has, does now, and irill, in all. time to come, while it exists, involve in it, as 
well in its present tossession as iti its fultue operations, crime, fraud, theft, robbery, muruer, 
^nd death." 

Among the expedients resorted to, in order to excite prejudices at the South against 
General Harrison, Mr. Senator Grundy, the Globe, and other mouth-pieces of Mr. 
Van Buren, have published the following: 

"TO THE PUBLICK. 

"Fellow-Citizens: Being called suddenly home, to yttend to my sick family, I have but a mo- 
ment to answer a few of the calumnies which are in circulation against me. 

" I am accused of being friendly to slavery. From my earliest youth, uj) to the present moment, 
I have been the ardent friend of human liberty. At the age of eighteen, I became a member of an 
Abolition Society, estabhshed at Richmond, the object of which was to ameliorate the condition of 
slaves, and procure their freedom by every legal means. My venerable friend, Judge Gatch,Vf Cler- 
mont County, was also a member of this Society, and has lately given me a certificate that I was 
ooe. The obligations I came under, 1 have faithfully performed. 

"WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON." 

This publication is made as if it had appeared, for the first time, in the Cincinnati Ga- 
zette of February 14, 1840; thus affecting to show that General Harrison is an Abo- 
litionist of the present day, and also that the publication is an entire letter. 

The misrepresentation is both fraudulent and foolish. The publication is only a few 
sentences of an address published by General Harrison, when he was a candidate for 
Congress, in 1822, eighteen years ago, at which time abohtion was as different from 
what it is now, as light is from darkness. The true paper is as follows : 

"TO THE PU CLICK. 
" Fellow-Citizens : Being called suddenly home, to attend my sick family, I have but a moment 
to answer a few of the calumnies which are in circulation concerning me. 

" I am accused of being friendly to slavery. From my earliest youth, to the present moment, 
I have been the ardent friend of human liberttj. At the age of eighteen, I became a member of an 
Abolition Society, established at Richmond, Virginia, the object of which was to ameliorate the con- 
dition of slaves, and procure their freedom by every legal means. My venerable friend. Judge 
Gatch, of Clermont County, was also a member of that Society, and has lately given me a certificate 
that I was one. The obligations wliich I then came under, I have faithfully performed. I have 
been the means of liberating many slaves, but never placed one in bondage. I deny that my votes 
in Congress, in relation to Missouri and Arkansas, are in the least incompatible with these principles. 
Congress had no more legal or constitutional right to emancipate the negroes in those sections of 
Louisiana, without the consent of their owners, than they have to free those of Kentucky. These 
people were secured in their property by a solemn covenant with France, when the country was pur- 
chased from that power. To prohibit the emigration of citizens of the Southern States to the part of 
the country the situation and climate of whicli was peculiarly suited to them, would have been highly 
unjust, as it had been purcliased out of the common fund ; particularly, too, when it is recollected 
that all the immense territory, to the northwest of the Ohio, had been ceded by Virginia, and that, 
with an unexampled liberality, she had herself proposed, by excluding slavery from it, to secure it for 
the emigration of those States which had no slaves. Was it proper, then, vi'hen her reserved territory 
was, in a great measure, filled up, to exclude her citizens from every part of the territory purchased 
out of the common fund. I was tlie first person to introduce into Congress the proposition that all 
the country above Missouri, (whicli, having no inhabitants, was free from the objection made to Mis- 
souri and Ai'kansas,) should never have slavery admitted into it. / repeat 2vhat I have before said, 
that, as our Union was only effected liy mutual concession, so only can it be preserved. 

My vote against the restriction of Missouri, in forming her constitution, was not a conclusive 
one. There would have bejn time enough, had I continued to be a member, before the question 
was decided, for m}' constituents to have instructed me, and / should have rejoiced in any ofportu- 
nity of sacrificing my seat to my principles, if they had instructed mc in opposition to my construction 
of the Constitution. Like many other members from the non-slavehohling States, of wliom I men- 
tion Shaw, Holmes, Mason, of Massachusetts, Lanman, of Connecticut, and Baldwin, of Pennsylva- 
nia, I could see nothing in the Constitution, which I had sworn to support, to warrant such an inter- 
ference with the rights of the States, and which had never before been attempted. And where is the 
crime in one set of men not being able to interpret the Constitution as other men interpret it ? 
As we had all sworn to support it, the crime would have been in giving it a construction which 
our consciences would not sanction. And, let me ask, for what good is this question again brought 
up? It has been settled, as all our family differences liave been settled, on the firm basis of mutual 
compromise ; and patriotism, as well as prudence, devoted the effects of that awful discussion to eternal 
oblivion. Is it not known that from that cause the great fabric of our Union was sliakento its foun- 
dation ?' Is it not known that Missouri would not have submitted to the restriction, and that the other 
slaveholding States had determined to support her ? But for this compromise, the probability is, that 
at this moment we might look upon the opposite shore of Ohio, not for an affectionate sister State, 



20 

but an armed and implacable rival. What patriotic man would not join the gallant Eaton in 
execrating the head and the hand that could devise and execute a scheme productive of a calamity so 
awful ? 

Upon the whole, fellow. citizens, our path is a plnin one; it is that marked out as well by humanity 
as duty. We cannot emancipate the slaves of the other States, without their consent, but by pro- 
ducing a convulsion which would undo us all. For tliis much to be desired event, we must wait the 
slow but certain progress of tliose good principles which ara every where gaining ground, and which 
assuredly will ultunatelj prevail. 

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON. 
MR. T. W. PLEASANTS'S LETTER. 

[kROM the RICHMOND WJUG.] 

The real object of the society in Richmond of whicli Gon. Harrison became a member, is explained 
in the following letter from Tarltou Woodson Pleasants, now of the county of Goochland, but then a 
citizen of Richmond, and a membt-.r of the society. It completely dissipates the charge against Gen. 
Harrison, so far as liis letter, quoted in Mr. Garland's letter, was relied upon as evidence to sustain 
it, and establishes that the views of the society were principally directed to the extirpation of the 
African slave trade — a trade which we presume not one man in the United States could at this day 
be brought to defend. The whole mistake was in Gen. Harrison's calling that an Abolition Society 
which was wholly different : 

"In the year 1798* I was a member of a society in Richmond, called the ' Humane Society.' Robert 
Pleasants, of Curies, was President of the socii;ty. Tiie object of this association was, in conjunction 
with the parent society in Philadelphia, to aid in abolishing the slatie trade, and to assist negroes who 
were illegally held in bondage, to obtain their rights through the courts of justice. I was once a dele, 
gate from the society in Richmond to a convention in Philadelphia, and there were delegates from 
the different societies of Pennsylvania, New-York, New-Jerscy, and Delaware. Dr. Benjamin Rush, 
James Todd, William Rawle, Dr. Wistt-r, Tliomas P. Cope, and others, were from Pennsylvania; 
Mr. Boyd, from New-York; Richard Hartshorn, from New-Jersey; Cajsar A. Rodney, from Dela. 
ware ; and many others, whose names I do not recollect. A very lengthy discussion took place upon 
the slave trade, in which William Rawle, Drs. Rush and Wistar, particularly distinguished them- 
selves. Dr. Rush made one of the most elegant speeches I ever heard. This was the principal sub- 
ject before the convention. If the abolition of slavery in the United States was alluded to at all, I do 
not recollect it. Thomas P. Cope and Timothy Paxton were the secretaries to the convention; and 
I have no doubt either of them, if living, would furnish a copy of the constitution, if written to by 
yourself. I have no recollection that Gen. Harrison was a member of the Richmond ' Humane So- 
ciety;' but I have no doubt this was the very' society of which he was a member, about which so much 
has latterly been said in the public journals. I sliould liave stated that Gov. James Wood was Vice 
President of the Richmond society. 

" You can make what use you please of this, except that I do not wish my name to be made public, 
as I wish to live and die in obscurity. 

"Yours, TARLTON W. PLEASANTS. 

"P. S. I was twenty-two years old in 1798, and Gen. H. must have been twenty-five: he had con. 
sequently gone to the West, and must have been a member of this society six or seven years before, 
as it is said he was only eighteen years old at the time he became a member. The society existed for 
eome years." 

[We publish the name, nevertheless, upon our " own responsibility." It is certain that this " Hu- 
mane Society" was the same to which Gen. Harrison alluded — for when in this city, in 1836, he said 
Robert Pleasants, of Curies, was its President. If its journals could be found, tliey would undoubt- 
edly show that numbers of Virginia's most distinguished sons of that day were members. — Ed. Whig.] 

Gen. Harrison, in his letter to Mr. James Lyons, says, on this subject : 

" In answer to the inquiry why I used the word ' abolition,' in designating a society of which I was 
a member in Richmond, in the year 1791, instead of tlie word ' humane,' which is known to be the one 
by which the society was really distinguished, all that I can say upon the subject is, that if I did 
really term it an abolition society — a fact which I can hardly believe, for I have not been able to see 
the paper containing my address to the people of tiie District in 1822 — it must have been from forget- 
fulness, which might easily happen afler a lapse of twenty-one years. At any rate, the word ' aboli- 
tion' was not understood to mean, in 1822, what it now means. There can be no doubt that the soci- 
ety of which Mr. Tarlton Pleasants was a member, and which, in his publication in the Richmond 
Whig, he calls the ' Humane Society of Richmond,' (and by this title Judge Gatch, wlio gave me the 
certificate in 1822, also designated it) was the same of which I was a member. Mr. Pleasants was a 
member in 1797, I in 1791. Mr. Robert Pleasants was the President at the former period, as he was 
when I was admitted." 

This society, whatever was its name, was in the city of Richmond, in Virginia, a slave- 
holding State, and was composed of slaveholders ! — a sufficient guaranty, one would think, 
of its harmlessness, and that its objects were purely '' A?/.w«.«f." Modern " abolition" 
was then not dreamed of Robert Pleasants was its President, and James Wood was 

* I am pretty confident this was the year. 



21 

Vice President. Mr. Stanly, now a Rppresrntative in Congress from the slaveholding 
State of North-Carol i,iia, uiid one of the most strenuous and formidable foes of the modern 
abolitionists that can be found in the whole South, in his speech, delivered in the House of 
Representatives, April 13, 184U, says; 

" I am able to throw additional ligiit upon this suhj'ct. I jriv? obtained a copy of the ' minutes of 
the proceedings' of the nonvontion of delegates wliicl) assembled at i'liiladelphia in 1797. I have 
looked through these proceedings, and there is not the slightest evidence of any design of interfering 
with the rights of the slaveholding States. The pvocjediugs of this convention fully sustain Mr. 
Tarlton Woodson Pleasants in his statemoiit. Delegates were in attendance from the States of New- 
York, New-Jersey, and Pennsylvania, from Bnllimore, Ricliinond, and Alexandria. No man can be 
foolish enough to suppose that societios could be formed in Baltimore, Richmond, and Alexandria, in 
the midst of slaveholders, and appoint delegates to consult upon the propriety of abolishing slavery, as 
abolitionists now propose. 

" At this convention, in 1797, a cominittoe was appointed, 'to whom was referred the several com- 
munications made to the convention, and who were directed to consider what objects are proper for 
the attention of the convention.' 

" The committee, of which the delegates from Baltimore, Richmond, and Alexandria, were mem- 
bers, recommended to the convention Mo address a letter, or ni'inorial, to the Secretary of State of 
the United States,' ' and to inform him of the attempts made, by citizens of the United States, to evade 
the law prohibiting our citizens from sup])lying foreign countries with slaves, by clandestinely using 
the Danish flig and registers, and praying such nid and interference of the Government of the United 
States, with the Court of Denmark, or with other Governments under whose authority such practices 
now obtain, as may consist with propriety,' &c. Tlie convention, in this, was sustained by the South- 
ern members. Tiicy ;isked nothing in this which it would be wrong to ask at tliis day. The prin- 
cipal object the convention had in view was, to put a stop to the sluv;! trad ', which was forbidden by 
the laws of the United States, and to aid, by suits in cotirt.x of Jiistire, the emancipation of such 
slaves as had once been liberated, and were afterwards unjustly and unlawfully reduced to slavery. 
This seems to have been the 'very head and front of th^ur offending.' 

"There is another fact which explains most s;itisfictorilv their proceedings, and affords a justifica- 
tion to this convention. They were entirely different in their objects and feelings from abolitionists 
of the present day. They did not assemble, officiously and impertinently, to devise ways and means 
for taking away their neighbor's prop-rty ; nor did they propose or intend, by issuing inflammatory 
pamplilets, to excite insurrection. At this time, as appears from the painplilet to which I have refer- 
red, the States of New.York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New-Jersey, were slaveholding States. 
Whatever meaeures, therefore, were adopted by this convention must have operated on themselves — 
must have affected their own rights, and the welfare of their own neighbors, kindred, and friends." 



VII. CHARGE AGAINST GENERAL HARRISON OF HAVING VOTED 
IN FAVOR OF SELLING WHITE MEN FOR DEBT. 

In support of this ridiculous calumny, the palace slaves refer to the following extract 
from the Laws of the Indiana Territory, printed at Vincennes, by Messrs. Stout & Smoot, 
in 1807, and now in the Library of the State Department, Washington City: 
Chapter vi. An Act respecting Crimes and Punishments. 

Sec. 30. When any person or persons shall, on conviction of any crime or breach of any penal law, 
be sentenced to pay a fine or fines, with or witlmut the costs of prosecution, it shall and may be law- 
ful for the court before whom such Conviction shall be had to order the sheriff to sell or hire the per- 
son or persons so convicted to service to any porson or persons who will pay the said fine and costs, 
for ."iuch term of time as the said court shall judge reasonable. 

And if such person or persons, so sentenced and hired or sold, shall abscond from the service of 
his or her master or mistress before the tirm of such servitude shill he expired, he or she so abscond- 
ing shall, on conviction before a justice of the peace, ba wliippeJ with thirty-nine stripes, and shall, 
moreover, serve two days for every one so lost. 

Sec. 31. The judges of the several courts of record in this Territory sliall give this act in charge 
to the grand jury at each and every court in which a grand jury shall be sworn. 

Ji'^SSE B. TfiO.MAS, Speaker of the Houie of Representatives, 
B. CHAMBERS, President of the Council. 

Approved, September 17, 1807. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON. 

It has even been said, that in approving this law. General Harrison approved a law 
for selUng white persons to free negroes! This is about as true as the rest of the story. 
At page 343, chap. 48, sec. 9, of the book already cited, is the following: 

No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time purchase any servant other than of their own com- 
plexion, and if any of the persons aforesaid shall, nevertheless, presume to purchase a white servant, 
such servant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed, and taken. 

Signed as follows : JESSE B. THOMAS, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

B. CHAMBERS, President of the Council. 

Approved, September 17, 1807. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON. 



22 

Mr. Van Buren's partisans also pretend to rely on a vote given by General Harrisop? 
in the Legislature of Ohio. The following is an authentic and concise statement of facts 
relating to the charge against General Harrison of "voting to sell white men for debt:" 

The vote which has been the subject of so much misrepresentation was given by General Harri- 
son in the Senate of Ohio, at the session of 1820-'21. Previous to that time, a law " For the pun., 
ishment of certain offences therein specified," passed February 11, 1815, had been in force.* This 
act defined and punished crimes or olTonces considered less heinous than crimes which Were punish- 
able by imprisonment in tlie penitentiary, such as petty larceny, house breaking, rescuing prisoners, 
and offences of the like grade. These offences were, by this law, made punishable by fine and 
imprisonment in the county jail. This law also provided that if the offender refused to pay the fine 
imposed on him by the court, and costs of prosecution, and the sheriff could find no property of the 
offender that he could levy on and sell, to pay the fine and costs, then he should imprison the offender 
in the county jail until tl»e fine and costs slioukl be paid. But it also provided that tlie county com- 
missioners might order the sheriff or jailer to discharge the offender imprisoned for the non-payment 
of such fine and costs from prison, if they were satisfied that he Was unable to pay the fine and costs.t 
It was found in practicii that the conviction and punishment of offenders under the act added greatly 
to the expenses of tlie counties, and consequently served to increase the burden of taxation ©n the 
people. 

Most of these petty criminals had little or no property, or adopted means to keep it out of the 
hands of the sheriff, so as to prevent effectually his collection of the fines and costs imposed on them 
for the violation of the law. The result was, that, in a majority of cases, the counties had to pay the 
costs of prosecuting th^'se offenders, and of sustaining them in prison ; thus compelling the innocent 
to pay for the conviction and punishment of the guilty. At the session of 1820-'21, a select com- 
mittee was raised in the House of Representatives to examine this subject and report to the House 
what amendments, if any, were necessary and proper.t This committee reported a bill supplementary 
to the act above referred to, the principal object of which seems to have been to diminish the expenses 
imposed on the counties by the prosecution and punishment of these offenders. [| 

This supplementary bill was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciaiy, and was afterward* 
reported back to the House by Mr. Morris, (late Senator in Congress,) with sundry amendments, 
containing provisions for the punishment of certain additional offences not contained in the original 
act, and containing also the obnoxious section authorizing the sheriff to sell offenders to such persons- 
as would pay the fine and costs for which the offenders were in prison, for the shortest period of ser- 
vice of such offenders. The bill passed the House, with this obnoxious section in it, by a vote of 
forty-two ayes to twenty-one noes — Thomas Morris, late Senator in Congress, Thomas Shannon, now 
Senator in the Oiiio Legislature, brother to Governor Shannon, M. T. Williams, late Surveyor-Gen- 
eral of the United States, E. Whittlesey, late member of Congress, among others, voting in the 
affirmative. § 

When this bill was under consideration in the Senate, Mr. Fithian moved to strike out the nine- 
teenth section of the bill, as it came from the House. This section, as has been previously stated, 
authorized the sheriff to sell the services of tlie offender who was unprisoned for the non-payment of 
the fine imposed on him by the cturt, and the costs of conviction, to the person who would pay such 
fine and costs, for the shortest term of service, and secured the offender from cruelty or abuse from 
the purchaser, during the term of service, by giving him the same remedies as are provided, by law, 
in the "case of master and apprentice. "IT 

* See Ohio Laws, vol. 13, page 249. 

t See section 37 of same act. 

i See Journal H. R., page 182. 

(I See sections 11, 12, and 14, of supplementary act, Ohio Laws, vol. L, page 197. 

§ See Journal H. R., page 320. 

If The section proposed to be stricken out is, at length, in these words : " Be it further enacted, 
That when any person shall be imprisoned, either upon execution or otherwise, for the non-payment 
of a fine or costs, or both, it shall be lawful for the sheriff of the county to sell out such person as a 
servant to any person witliin this State who will pay the whole amount due for the shortest period of 
service, of which sale public notice shall be given at least ten days ; and upon such sale being effected 
the sheriff shall give to the purchaser a certificate thereof, and deliver over the prisoner to him, from 
which time the relation between such purchaser and the prisoner shall be that ol' master and servant, 
until the time of service expires ; and for injuries done by either, remedy shall be had in the same 
manner as is or may be provided by law in the case of master and apprentice. But nothing herein 
contained shall be construed to prevent persons being discharged from imprisonment according to 
the provisions of the thirty-sevcnth section of the act to which this is supplementary, if it shall be 
considered expedient to grant such discharge. Provided, That the court, in pronouncing sentence 
upon any person or persons convicted under this act, or the act to which tliis is supplementary, may 
direct such person or persons to be detained in prison until the fine be paid, or the person or persons 
otherwise disposed of, agreeably to the provisions of this act."— .Senate Journal, page 304. sec. 19. 

The thirty-seventh section of the act for the punishment of certain offences therein specified, which 
is here referred to, is as follows : 

" Sec. 37. Be it further enacted. That when any person shall be confined in jail for the payment 
of any fine or costs that may be inflicted agreeably to the provisions of this act, the county commis- 
sioners may, if it be made to appear to their satisfaction that the persons so confined cannot pay such 
^ne xnd costs, order the sheriff or jailer of such county to discharge such person from imprisonment. 



23 

This section was stricken out in the Senate, by a vot« of twenty ayes to twelvo noes; General 
Harrison, Eli Baldwin, kite Van Buren candidate for (iuveruor of Ohio, with others, voting in the 
negative.* In addition to the privih'ge seemed to the imprisoned oficnder who should be unable to 
pay his fine and costs, of being liberated by the county commissioners, if they considered it expe- 
dient, the bill contained, when this vote on striking out the si-lling S'jction was taken, a section pro- 
viding that the offender might discharge his line by labor on the ptiblic highways, at such rates as 
might be prescribed by tlie court passing sentence on the convicted offender.t 
From this statement of facts it clearly appears — 

First.. That the selling, so iimch complained of, was only t!ie soiling of the services of the con- 
victed offender for a limited period of lime. 

Second. That the otFender, during the period of his service, was secured from injustice, cruelty, 
or abuse, in the same manner as appiv'ntices are secured against abuse from their masters. 

Third. That if the offender was abh' Aud willing to labor, he might discharge the fine imposed on 
him for his violation of the law, by labor on the public highways, and thus avoid being sold out to 
service. 

Fourth. That if he was unable to 1 \\my on the highways, and so poor as to he unable to pay his fine 
and costs, he might, in such a t;ase, be discharged by the county commissioners without either paying 
or being sold for the payment of his hue and costs. 

Fifth, and last. That the stilling had no ref u'oncc to honr;8t men or to debtors, in the ordinary 
acceptation of the term, but only to convicted offenders against the penal laics of the State, And, 
even in tliese cases, it was only substituting temporary service, in lieu of imprisonment for an indefi- 
nite length of time, in the noisome cells of a county jail, wiica-e the offender could earn nothing to 
pay his fine nor to support himself or family. 

This bill was under consideration at a time of great p'^cuniary emharrassirient in the State of Ohio. 
So difficult was it for the people to raise money for the payment of taxes, that the collections were 
inadequate to meet the ordinary expenses of the Government. The Legishituro were engaged during 
a large part of the session in considering various plans for reducing the current expenses of" the State, 
and a law was passed authorizing the Governor to borrow the sum of ^20,00(1, in aid of the proceeds 
of taxation. During the pendency of the supplementary act for the punishment of offenders, above 
referred to, attempts were made in both branches of the I/egislaturc to substitute whipping for impri.. 
sonment in the county jail, as a method of punishing offences less expensive to the counties; and the 
plan of selling the services of the convicted offender, for a limited period, to pay the fine and costs 
iinposed on him as a punishment for violating the laws of his country, was advocated by many re- 
spectable members of both branches of the General Assembly, as a mode of punishment less expen- 
sive to the public than that of nnprisonment, and less barbarous than that of whip[)ing the offender 
at the post. 

Columbus, April G, 1840. 

Dear Sir: Agreeably to your request, I have carefully examined the journals of the General As- 
sembly for the session when the proposed measure '^ of selling ofit the services of convicted offenders 
against the penal laws of the State, for a limited tinir, to j)ay tlie faies imposed on them hy the court 
and costs of conviction" was under consideration, as 'well as the statute laws of the State in relation 
to the subject, and have given you, above, a correct statement of all the material facts and circum- 
stances in the case. 

At my request, William Miner, Esq.,'Glcrk of the Ihiited States Courts for Ohio, and Lyne Star- 
ling, "Junior, Cl^-rk of the Superior C'onrt and Court of Coniinim Pleas for Franklin County, have 
examined and compared the statement with the laws and jouinals, and added their certificate of its 
corrcctiiGSs 

Very respectfully, ALFRED KELLY. 

To the Hon. Thomas Corwin. 

At the request of Alfred Kelly, Esq., we have camfully examined the foregoing statement, and 
compared the same with the laws and journals therein referred to, and hnd the same to be fairly and 
correctly set forth. WILLIAM MINER, 

LYNE STARLING, Jun. 

I have often examined the laws, as above set forth, and 1 know they are accurately copied, and 
their effect, if the proposed bill had passed, is truly stated. 

April 14, 1640. THOMAS CORWIN. 

When the votes of Gen. Harrison, and thog<^ who voted with him on the foregoing 
snhject, were first made the subject of misrepresentation, he published the following tri- 
umphant defence : 
To the Cincinnati Advertiser : 

Sir : In your paper of the 15th instant I observed a most violent attack upon eleven other members 
of the late Senate and myself, for a supposed vote, given at the last session, for the passage of a law 

and the sheriff or jailer, upon receiving such order, in writing, shall discharge such person accord- 
ingly. Provided, That the commissioners may, at any time thereafter, order and cause to be issued 
an execution against the body, lands, goods, or chattels of the person so discharged from imprison- 
ment, for the amount of such fine and costs." — [See Ohio Laws, vol. 13, page 239.J 

* See Senate Journal, page 30. 

t See section 16 of the supplementary act, Ohio Laws, vol. 19, page 197. 



24 

to "sell debtors in certain casen." If such had been our conduct, I acknowledge that we should not 
only deserve the censure which the writer has bestowed upon us, but the execration of every honest 
man in society. An act of that kind is not only opposed to the principles of justice and humanity, 
but would be a palpable violation of the Constitution of the State, which every legislator is sworn to 
support; and, siiiclioned by a House of Representatives and twelve Senators, it would indicate a 
state of depravity which would fill every patriotic l)oi-oui with the most alarming anticipations. But 
the fact is, that no such proporiitioii was ever mudo in the Legislature, or even thought of. The act 
to which tlie writer alludes ii.is no inor j relation to the collection of '"debts," than it has to the dis- 
covery of longitude. It was an act for the " puaishmjut of offences " against the State ; and that part 
of it which has so deeply wounded the feelings of your correspondent was passed by the House of 
Representatives, and voted for by the twelve Senators, under the impression that it was the most mild 
and humane mode of dealing with the off .nders for whose cases it was intended. It was adopted by 
the House of Repres-mtativcs as a p irt of the general system of the criminal law, which was thun 
undergoing a complete r:;vision and amendment. The necessity of this is evinced by the following 
facts : For several years past it had become apparent that the penitentiary system was becoming more 
and more burdensome at every session; a large appropriation was called for, to met the excess of 
expenditure above the receipts of the est iblislmient. In the commencement of the session of 1820, 
the deficit amounted to nciir twenty thousand dollars. 

This growincr evil required the immedi;ile interposition of some vigorous legislative measure. Two 
were recommended, as being likely to produce the effect : first, placing the institution under better 
mana<Tement ; and, secondly, lessening the number of convicts who were sentenced for short periods, 
and whose labor was fi)uiid, of course, to be most unproductive. In pursuance of tlie latter principle, 
thefts io the amount of fifVy dollars or upwards were subjected to punishment in the penitentiary, 
instead of ten dollars, wliich was the former minimum sum. This was easily done. But the great 
difficulty remainfid — to determine what sliould be the punishment of those numerous larcenies below 
the sum of fifty dollars. By some, whipping was proposed; by otliers, punishment by hard labor in 
the county jails ; and by others it was thought best to make them work on the higliways. To all 
Ihese there appeared insuperable objections. Fine and imprisonment were adopted by tjjo House of 
Representatives, as the only alternative ; and, as it is well known these vexatious pilferings were 
generally perpetrated by the more worthless vagabonds in society, it was added, that when they could 
not pay the fines and costs, which are always part of the sentence and punishment, their services 
should be sold out to any person who would pny their fines and costs for them. This was the clause 
that was passed, as I believe, by a unanimous vote of the House, and stricken out in the Senate, in 
opposition to the twelve who have been dermuuced. A little further trouble in examining the journals 
would have shown your correspondent that this was considered as a substitute for whipping, which 
was lost only by a single vote in the Senate, and in the. House by a small majority, after being once 
passed. 

I think, Mr. Editor, I have said enough to show that this obnoxious law would not have applied to 
" unfortunate debtors of sixty-four years," but to infamous offenders, who depredate upon the property 
of their ftllow-citizens, and who, by the Constitution of the State, as well as the principle of existing 
laws, were subject to involuntary servitude. I must confess I had no very sanguine expectations of 
a beneficial effect from this measure, as it would apply to convicts who had attained the age of matu- 
rity ; but I had supposed tluit a woman or a youth who, convicted of an offence, remained in jail for 
the payment of the fine and costs imposed, might with great advantage be transferred to the residence 
of some decent, virtuous private family, whose precept and example would gently lead them back to 
the paths of rectitude. 

I would appeal to the candor of your correspondent to say whether, if there were an individual 
confined under the circumstances I have mentioned, for whose fate he was interested, he would not 
gladly see him transferred from the filthy enclosure of a jail, and the still more filtliy inhabitants, to 
the comfortable mansion of some virtuous citizen, whose admonitions would check his vicious pro- 
pensities, and whose authority over him would be no more than is exercised over thousands of appren- 
tices in our country, and those bound servants which are tolerated in our as well as in every other 
State in the Union. Far from, ndmcating the ahom.ivalile principles attributed to me by your cor- 
respondent, I think that inipriso nnientfor debt, under any circumstances but that where fraud is alleged, 
is at war icith the best principles of our Consiilu.tion, and ought to be abolished. 

I am. Sir, your humble servant, WM. H. HARRISON. 

North Bend, December 21, 1821. 

In 1836, the charge was revived, and while Gen. Harrison was in Virginia the fol- 
lowing' correspondence took place; 

Richmond, September 15, 1836. 

Dear Sir: Your political opponents in the State of Maryland have for some time been actively 
urging against you a new charge — that o? selling white men — which probably had no inconsiderable 
eflt'cct in the recent elections in that Stiite, and which is evidently much relied upon to influence the 
approaching elections throughout the United States. I enclose you a paper (the Baltimore Republi- 
can) containing the charge in full ; and I beg of you, as an act of justice to yourself and your- friends, 
to enable me to refute a charge against the uniform tenor of your litCi which, I am well aware, has 
been replete with instances of distinguished private liberality and public sacrifice. 

With the highest respect, I have the honor to be your fellow-citizen, 

^. w H H.„.,=nv ■ -JOHN H. PLEASANTS. 

Gen. Wu-LiAji H- Harrison. 



25 

Richmond, September 15, 1836. 

Dear Sir: I acknowledge the receipt of your favor of this date. I have before heard of the accu- 
sation to whicii it n-fers. On my way hither, I met yesterday with a young gentleman of Maryland, 
who informed me that a vote of mine in the Senate of Ohio had been published, in favor of a law to 
sell persons imprisoned uudor a judgment for debt, for a term of years, if unable otherwise to discharge 
the execution. 1 did not for a moment hesitate to declare that 1 had never given any such vote; and 
that, if a vote of that description had been published and ascribed to me, it was an infamous forgery. 
Such an act would have been repugnant to my feelings, and in direct conflict with my opinions, public 
and private, through the whole course of my life. No such proposition was ever submitted to the 
Legislature of Ohio ; none such would, for a moment, have been entertained, nor would any son of 
hors have dared to propose it. 

So fir from being willing to sell men for debts which they are unwilling to discharge, I am, and 
ever have been, opposed to all imprisonment for debt. Fortunately, I have it in my power to show 
that such has been my established opinion, and that, in a public capacity, I avowed and acted upon it. 
Will those vvho have preferred the unfounded and malicious accusation refer to the journals of the 
Senate of the United States, 2d session, 19th Congress, page 325 ? It will there be seen that I was 
one of the Committee which reported a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt. When the bill was before 
tlie Senate, 1 advocated its adoption, and, on its passage, voted in its favor. [See Senate Journal 1st 
session, 20th Congress, pages 101 and 102.] 

It is not a little remarkable, that if the effort I am accused of having made to subject men to sale 
for the non-payment of their debts, had been successful, I might, from the state of my pecuniary cir- 
cumstances at the time, have been the first victim. I repeat, the charge is a vile calumny. At no 
period of my life would I have consented to subject the poor and vnfortunate to such a deo-radation ' 
nor have I omitted to exert myself, in their behalf against such an attempt to oppose them. 

It is sought to support the charge by means of garbled extracts from the journals of the Senate of 
Ohio. The section of the bill which is employed for that purpose had no manner of reference to the 
reiation of creditor and debtor, and could not by possibility subject the debtor to the control of his 
creditor. None know better than the authors of the calumny that the alleged section is utterly at 
variance with the charge which it is attempted to found upon it ; and that, so far from a proposition 
to invest a creditor with power over the liberty of his debtor, it had respect only to the mode of dis- 
posing of pul)lic offenders, who had been found guilty, by a jury of their fellow-citizens, of some crime 
against the laws of their State. That was exclusively the import and design of the section of the bill 
upon the motion to strike out which, I voted in the negative. So you perceive, that in place of votinc 
to enlarge the power of creditors, the vote whicli I gave concerned alone the treatment of malefactoi-s 
of crimes against the public. 

It would extend this letter to an inconvenient length to go fully into the reasons which led me at 
the time to an opinion in favor of the proposed treatment of that class of ofl^enders who would have 
fallen within its operations, nor is such an expose called for. The measure was by no means of novelty 
in other parts of the country. In the State of Delaware, there is an act now in force in similar words 
witli the section of the bill before the Ohio Senate, which has been made of late the pretext of such 
insidious invective. Laws with somewhat similar provisions may probably be' found in many other of 
the States. In practice, the measure would have ameliorated the condition of those who were under 
condemnation. As tJie law stood, they were liable under the sentence, to confinement in the common 
jail, where oflienders of various degrees of profligacy — of different ages, sex, and color, were crowded 
together. Under such circumstances, it is obvious that the bad must become worse, whilst reformation 
could hardly be expected in respect to any. The youthful offender, it might be hoped, would be re- 
claimed under the operation of the proposed system, but there was great reason to fear his still greater 
corruption amid the contagion of a common receptacle of vice. Besides, the proposed amendment of 
the law presupposed that the delinquent was in confimment for the non-payment of a fine and costs 
of prosecution — (the payment of which was a part of the sentence:) it seemed, therefore, humane in 
respect to the offender, to rSlieve him from confinement which deprived him from the means of dis- 
charging the penalty, and to place him in a situation in which he might work out his- deliverance even 
at a loss, for a time, of his personal liberty. 

But I forbear to go turther into the reasons which led me, sixteen years ago, as a member of the 
Ohio Senate, to entertain a favorable opinion of an alteration which was proposed in the criminal 
police of the State. It is certain that neither in respect to myself, or those who concurred with me 
was the opinion at the time considered as the result of unfriendly bias towards the poor or unfortunate' 
Nay, the last objection which I could have anticipated, even from the eager and reckless desire to 
assail me, was a charge of unfriendliness to the humble and poor of the community. 

I am, my dear Sir, with great respect, your humble servant, 

WM. H. HARRISON. 

J. 11. Pleasants, Esq. 

Penal laws, like those of Indiana and Ohio, which have been made the ground of absurd 
clamor against General Harrison, exist in many States of the Union. Take for ex- 
ample the following : 

MARYLAND.— Late of 1793, Chap. 57, Sec. 16. 
Sec. 16. And be it enacted. If any person committed for non-payment of any penalty, fine, or for- 
feiture, shall remain in prison above thirty days, and shall not, witliin that time, enter into recogni- 
zance with such security as any one of the said justices may approve, for the payment of such penalty 
fine or forfeiture, and costs, within six months thereafter, that it shall be lawful fob the sheriff 
4 



26 

OF THE SAID COUNTY TO SELL SUCH PERSON AT AUCTION AS A SERVANT, FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING ONE 

YEAR, or such less time as will produce the penalty, fine or forfeiture, and costs, or, if so directed by 
any two of the said justices, for any term not exceeding two years, or such less time as will produce 
the penalty, fine or forfeitures, and costs ; and the money arising from the sale shall be applied to the 
payment of such penalty, fine or forfeiture, and costs. 

\IRGINIA.— Vagrants. 
Act of February 10th, 1819— January 1, 1820, R. C. ch, 239. 

1. Sec. 43. Any able-bodied man, who, not having wherewithal to maintain himself, shall be 
found loitering, and shall have a wife and children, without means for their subsistence, whereby they 
may become burdensome to their county or town ; and any able-bodied man, without a wife or child, 
who, not having wherewithal to maintain himself, shall wander abroad, or be found loitering, without 
betaking himself to some honest employment, or shall go about begging, shall be deemed and treated 
as a vagrant. (1787, c. 48 ; 1792, c. 102, R. C.) 

4. Sec 36, The overseers of the poor, or any one of them, shall be, and are hereby empowered, 
upon discovering any vagrant or vagrants, within their respective districts or corporations, to make 
information thereof to any magistrate of their county or corporation, and to require a warrant for 
apprehending such vagrant or vagrants, to be brought before him or some other magistrate ; and if, 
upon due examination, it shall appear that the person or persons are within the true description of a 
vagrant, such magistrate shall, by wari'ant under his hand, order such vagrant or vagrants to be de- 
livered to some one of the overseers of the poor of the district or corporation in which such vagrant 
or vagrants shall have been apprehended, to be employed in labor for any term not exceeding three 
months, and, by the said overseer of the poor, hired out for the best wages that can be procured, to be 
applied to the use of the poor. If any such vagrants shall, during such term of service, run away 
from the person so employing him or them, he or she shall bo dealt with in the same manner as other 
runaway servants. (1787, c. 48 ; 1792, c. 102, R. C.) 

This law against vagrants still stands on the statute book of Virginia, and was voted 
for, in 1787, by such men as John Marshall, James Monroe, Patrick Henry, George 
Mason, George Nicholas, Bushrod Washington, Paul Carrington, Ludwell Lee, Archi- 
bald Stuart, Daniel Browne, Charles M. Thurston, and William Fitzhugh. 

The two sections just cited are, respectively, sections 17 and 13, of the act of 1787, 
ch. 48. (See Henry's Statutes at large, vol. 12, pages 579, 577.) They were re-enacted 
at the revision of 1819, and are still in force. They operate not on the honest poor, but 
on the unworthy, whether rich or poor. They were enforced, several years ago, in Alex- 
andria, against a gambler, who had plenty of money. In 1810, white men were sold out 
to service in Virginia for gambling. In Berkley County, an instance is recollected to 
have occurred, in which the offence was playing billiards. 

The true description of the votes of General Harrison which have been so much 
•misrepresented, is, that they were votes to allow convicted criminals to regain their liberty 
hy working out their time. A similar law exists in North-Carolina. It is an old law 
<of the State, and was re-enacted in 1836-37. 



VIII.— THE TARIFF. 

"Mr. Van Buren voted for the Tariff of 1824. (See Senate Journal, May 13th, 1824, 
jpage 401.) At a meeting held at Albany, July 10th, 1827, to send Delegates to a Tariff 
^Convention, he advocated a Tariff^ not only for revenue, but for " .i'rotection." He 
said : 

That having now Stated, as fully as the time would admit, his general views upon tlie subject, his 
■iopinion of the settled policy of the State, as to the propriety and expediency of allbrding legislative 
protection to the manufacturing interests of the country, by temperate and wise, and therefore salu- 
'iary laws, and his readiness to aid in the passage of all such laws, he would trespass for a few 
moments, &c. 

He also said : 

He owed many thanks to the meeting for the very kind attention with which he had been listened 
to by gentlemen, between many of whom and himself there had, upon public matters, been differences 
of opinion of long standing. His situation, in reference to the wool-growing interest, was well known 
to most of them. He had, at present, invested more than twenty thousand dollars in sheep, and farms 
devoted, and which he meant to devote, to that business. He felt all proper concern for his own 
interest, and would, of course, cheerfully unite in all suitable measures for its advantage. 

Mr. Van Buren voted a!lso for the Tariff Act of 1828, and sustained it throughout, as 
will appear from the following extract of the Senate Journal, May 13, 1828: 

The amendments to the bill entitled "An Act in alteration of the several Acts imposing duties on 
imports," having been reported by the Committee, correctly engrossed, the bill was read the third time, 
as amended ; and. 



27 

On motion of Mr. Hayne, that the said bill be postponed indefinitely, it was determined in the 
negative. Yeas, 20, Nays, 27. 

Those who voted in the affirmative are — 

Messrs. Berrien, Bouligny, Branch, Chambers, Chandler, Cobb, Ellis, Hayne, Johnston, of Louiai- 
ana, King, McKinley, Macon, Parris, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South-Carolina, Tazewell, Tyler, 
White, Williams, Woodbury. 

Those who voted in tlie negative arc — 

Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bateman, Benton, Chase, Dickerson, Eaton, Foot, Harrison, Hendricks, 
JOHNSON, of Kentucky, Kane, Knight, McLane, Marks, Noble, Ridgcly, Robbins, Rowan, Rug- 
gles, Sanford, Seymour, Silsbee, Thomas, VAN BUREN, Webster, Willey. 

On the question, " Shall the bill pass as amended," it was determined in tlie affirmative. Yeas, 26, 
Nays, 21. 

Those who voted in the affirmative are — 

Messrs. Barnard, Barton, Bateman, Benton, Bouligny, Chase, Dickerson, Eaton, Foot, Harrison, 
Hendricks, JOHNSON, of Kentucky, Kane, Knight, McLane, Marks, Noble, Ridgely, Rowan, Rug. 
gles, Sanford, Seymour, Thomas, VAN BUREN, Webster, Willey. 

Those who voted in the negative are — 

Messrs. Berrien, Branch, Chambers, Chandler, Cobb, Ellis, Hayne, Johnston, of Louisiana, King, 
McKinley, Macon, Parris, Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South-Carolina, Tazewell, 
Tyler, White, Williams, Woodbury. 

So it was resolved, that the bill do pass with amendments. 

Ordered, That the Secretary request the concurrence of the House of Representatives in the amend- 
ments.— (Senate Journal, 1827-'28, pages 409, 410.) 

Mr. Van Buren's apology to the South, for having voted for the tariff bill of 1828, 
is, that he voted under instructions. The apology is on its face insufficient; because, if he 
really thought that the bill was a ''hill of abominations^'' he might have resigned his seat 
without voting, and no good instruction man would have blamed him. This is just what 
Mr. Rives did, on a similar occasion, and his constituents sustained him in the act. It is 
what General Harrison would have done, 'as he expressly says, in his letter before 
cited, to the Cincinnati editor, published in 1822, if he had considered that by voting for 
instructions " he would violate the constitution," though he was an unflinching believer in 
the right of the people to instruct their representative, when elected ; " in such case he 
would," he says, ''have thought it his duty to resign, and give them an opportunity of 
electing another representative, whose opinions would accord with their own." 

But what were these instructions, on the strength of which Mr. Van Buren so 
clamorously begs pardon of the South 1 They are contained in the following resolutions, 
passed by the Legislature of New- York on the 30th and 31st of January, 1828 : 

Resolved, (if the Senate concur herein,) That the Senators of this State, in the Congress of the 
United States, be, and they are hereby instructed, and the Representatives of this State are I'equested, 
to make every proper exertion to etfect such a revision of the tariff as will afford a sufficient protec- 
tion to the growers of wool, hemp, and flax, and the manufacturers of iron, woollens, and every other 
article, so far as the same may be connected with the interest of manufactures, agriculture, and 
commerce. 

Resolved, as the sense of this Legislature, That the provisions of the woollen bill, which passed the 
House of Representatives at the last session of Congress, whatever advantages they may have pro- 
mised to the manufacturers of woollen goods, did not afford adequate encouragement to the agricultu- 
rist and growers of wool. 

It is plain that these instructions did not bind Mr. Van Buren to any given rate of 
duties. They only instructed him to obtain, if he could, "a sufficient protection " for 
certain articles, and left him to judge of the sufficiency. And yet he resorts to these 
instructions as a shelter from the apprehended consequences of his vote for the tariff 
law of 1828. 

Again : What is the history of these instructions ? A Senator, from Mr. Van Buren's 
own State, has recently charged him, on the floor of the Senate, with having himself 
got up these instructions, and offered to bring proof of the fact, should it be denied. It has 
not been denied. It had been made before, and not denied. Mr. Tazewell, Senator from 
Virginia, is known to have said to him, " Sir, you have deceived me once, that was i/our 
fault; if you deceive me again, the fault will be mine." About that time, Mr. Van Bu- 
ren was held out at Albany as a friend of the tarifl^ while he represented himself to the 
southern Senators as reluctantly supporting it, contrarily to his own convictions, but com- 
pelled by his instructions. His present opinions are equivocal. We shall presently cite 
General Harrison's direct, straight-forward avowal of his determination to support the 
"Compromise Act." No distinct opinion on this measure could be traced to Mr. Van 
Buren till very recently. In a long, argumentative, electioneering letter, under date of 
July 31, ISIO, in answering the question, ''Are you in favor of preserving, entire, the 



28 

tariff compromise?" he says: '' I was seriously friendly to the passage of the Compro- 
mise Bill, and have always been and still am disposed to carry it into full and fair effect." 
The Globe says that ''seriously" is a misprint for ''sincerely." Be it so. 

General Harrison voted for the tariff of 1828, and he voted for it openly and like 
a man; but he has distinctly pledged himself to abide by the Compromise Act, which is 
entirely satisfactory to the whole South. 

In his letter to Messrs. Dort, Taylor, and others, dated Zanesville, November 2, 1836, 
he says : 

I regret that my remarks of yesterday were misunderstood in relation to the tariff' system. What 
I meant to convey was, that I had been a warm advocate for that system, upon its first adoption ; tliat 
I still believed in the benefits it had conferred upon the country : but I certainly never had, nor ever 
could have, any idea of reviving it. What I said was, that I would not agree to the repeal as it now 
stands; in other words, I am for supporting the Compromise Act, and never will agree to its being 
altered or repealed. 

And SO in his letter of November 4, 1836, to Judge Berrien, General Harrison 
says: 

Good faith, and the peace and harmony of the Union, do, in my opinion, require that the compro- 
mise of the tariflT, known as Mr. Clay's bill, should be carried out according to its spirit and in- 
tention. 

In opposition to these explicit declarations. General Harrison is held up by his 
enemies at the South as having said that he would adhere to the tariff " until the streets of 
our cities were covered with grass." This charge is founded on a fraudulent perversion 
of a passage in his Address to the Hamilton County Agricultural Society of Ohio, held 
upon the 15th and 16th of January, 1831. The reader will find, on reading the speech, 
that General Harrison expressly denies such a consequence to the tai'iff; and that his 
sentiments, in the passage relied on, are such as every American patriot, whether for or 
against the tariff must cordially approve. In referring to a speech made in 1821, by 
James M. Garnett, President of the Agricultural Society of Fredericksburg, General 
Harrison said: 

Mr. Garnett is a man of the finest talents, and as conspicuous for the excellence of his character. 
He is a farmer ; and the products of his farm, and those of his district of tlie country, arc, perhaps, 
precisely such as ours, corn and wheat being the staples. In a previous or subsequent address, Mr. 
Garnett denominates the tariff " political quackery," the effects of which had been to cover the streets 
of Norfolk with grass ! That this was the case at Norfolk, there was no doubt, as Mr. Garnett says 
so ; but it is impossible that it should have been caused by the tariff, unless it operated retrospectively ; 
for its direct operation could not have been felt, for good or for evil, until long subsequent to the de- 
livery of the speech. 

In a subsequent part of this same speech, Cteneral Harrison said: 

It may be asked whether, under any circumstances, I would be willing to abandon the tariff. I 
•answer, without hesitation, ix\ the affirmative. Whenever the streets of Norfolk and Charleston 
■shall be covered with gi-ass, and our southern friends find no market for their produce, and this 
state of things can be distinctly traced to tjie tariff, I would then instantly give my voice for its 
modification or entire repeal, even if I should still think that its continuance would be beneficial to 
a majority of the American people. The first principle of a republic is the rule of the majority. This, 
-however, presupposes the possession by tlie majority of sufficient intelligence and virtue to prevc:it 
them from infficting unnecessary injuries upon the minority. Indeed, tliere is another principle of 
our Government no less sacred than tiie one I have mentioned, and not to be found in any other code, 
except in relation to privileged minority — that the minority have rights which are not only intan- 
gible by the majority, but unalienable by themselves. But in this conffict of interest, which is to de- 
cide ? The majorit}', certainly ; but upon the principle of strict justice. 

In the same speech. General Harrison said : 

No American statesman would have avowed it to be his object to make this exclusively a rnanufac- 
turing nation, to give that interest a preponderance over the agricultural. It was necessi'y, dire 
necessity, that induced the Government to transfer the workshops of Europe to our own shores. 
The collection of such immense masses of human beings, within such narrow limits as manufacturing 
establishments require, cannot be favorable to our institutions. And, for myself, I have as much 
aversion to converting our hardy, active, clean-limbed husbandmen into bandy-legged Spitalfield 
weavers, as the great American philosopher himself. Protecting duties being therefore g;iven for the 
purpose, exclusively, of aiding agriculture, ivherever one of these duties comes in cunfiict with the 
interests of agriculture, it ought to be abolished. 



IX. FEDERALISM. 
Gen. Harrison has been charged by the partisans of the Administration with being a 
Federalist, because he was twice appointed to office by President John Adams, and because 



'29 

the same charge had been made against him by John Randolph, in the Senate of the Uni- 
ted States. 

It is true that Gen. Harrison was appointed to office by John Adams. And so too 
was THE Father of his Country. At page 232, vol. 1, of the Executive Journal is 
the following passage ; 

Gentlemen of the Senate: I nominate Gkorge Washinoto.v, of Mount Vernon, to b3 Lieut<?nant 
G'Mieral and Connnander-in-Cliief of all the armies raised or to be raised in the United States. 
United States, July 2, 1798. JOHN ADAMS. 

But Gen. Harrison was appointed to office by Presidents Washington, Jefferson. 
and Madison, as well as by President John Adams. 

On the 3 1st October, 1791, he was nominated by President Washington to the Senate, 
as Ensign in the First Regiment of Infantry; and {Executive Journal, vol. I, p. 86, 88,) 
on the 22d February, 1793, as a Lieutenant of Cavalry. 

At p. 441, of vol. I, Executive Journal, is a message, dated February 4, 1803, of which 
the following is an extract : 

I nominate William Henry Harrison to be Governor of Indiana Territor}', from tlie 13th day of 
May next, when his present commission as Governor will expire. 

William Henry Harrison, of Indiana, to be Commissioner to enter into any treaty or treaties, which 
may be necessary, with the Indian tribes, northwest of the Ohio, and within the territory of the 
United States, on the subject of their boundaries or lands. 

THOMAS JEFFERSON. 

General Harrison, therefore, received both these important appointments at the same 
time. On the l5th December, 1806, General Harrison was appointed Governor of In- 
diana by Mr. Jefferson. — See 2d vol. Executive Jourjial, page 44. 

On the 19th of December, 1809, General Harrison was appointed Governor of Indiana 
Territory by Mr. Madison. — See vol. 2, Executive Journal, page 130. 

On the 9th November, 1812, General Harrison was appointed Brigadier-General, and, 
on the 27th February, 1813, Major-General, by Mr. Madison. — See vol. 2, E.crcutive 
Journal, pages 296, 300, 329. 

It thus appears that General Harrison was twice appointed Governor of Indiana 
Territory, and Commissioner to make all necessary treaties with the Indian tribes north- 
west of the Ohio — a more important appointment than that of Governor — by Mr. Jeffer- 
son ; and once appointed Governor, and, also, Brigadier-General, and Major-C4cneral, by 
Mr. Madison; making, in all, six appointments by Jefferson and Madison, and but.two by 
John Adams. • 

As to John Randolph's charge, made in a debate in the Senate in 1826: 

Mr. Randolph said : Now, Sir, the only difference between tlie gentleman from Ohio and myself ie 
this, and it is vital : that gentleman and myself differ fundamentally and totally, and did differ when 
we first took our seats in Congress; he, as a Delegate from the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, 
I as a member of the other House from the State of Virginia ; he was an open, zealous, frank sup- 
porter of the sedition-law and black-cockade Administration ; and I was as open, zealous, and frank 
an opponent of the black-cockade and sedition-law Administration. We differ fundamentally and 
totally. We never can agree about measures or about men. I do not mean to dictate to the gentle- 
man : let us agree to differ as gentlemen ought to do, especially natives of the same State, who are 
antipodes to each other in politics. 

Mr. Harrison said, in reply, that he could not refrain from making his acknowledgments to tho 
gentleman from Virginia for the notice he had taken of him. He had been pleased to say that in the 
administration of Mr. Adams I was a federalist, and he comes to that conclusion from the course 
pursued by me in the session of 1799-1800. At that session the gentleman and myself met for the 
first time : he in the station of Representative from Virginia, and I in the more humble one of Dele- 
gate from the Northwestern.Tcrritory. Having no vote, I did not think it proper to take part in the 
discussion of any of the great political questions which divided the two parties. My business was 
to procure the passage of the bills which I had introduced for the benefit of the people I repre- 
sented. The gentleman had no means of knowing my political principles unless he obtained them in 
private conversations. As I was upon terms of intimacy with tlie gentleman, it is very probable tliat 
he might have heard me express sentiments favorable to the then Administration. I certainly felt 
them, so far at least as to the course pursued by it in relation to the Government of France. Nor, 
said Mr. H., was I unsupported in that opinion by tliose who had a right to control my actions, if not 
my opinions. In no part of the ' country were those measures more decidedly approbated than by 
my immediate constituents — tlie Legislature of the Northwestern Territory — as the address of that 
body to the President during that session will show. 

For Mr. Adams, [said Mr. H.,] I entertained at that time, and have ever since entertained, the 
greatest respect. I believe him to be an honest man and a pure patriot ; and his conduct during that 
session proved him to be such. This opinion, I know, [said Mr. H.,] was entertained by those two 



30 

able and upright statesmen, John Marshall and James A. Bayard. [To the question asked by Miv 
Randolph, whether Mr. H. recollected a conversation between Mr. Nicholas and himself, in relation 
to the negroes and politics of Virginia, Mr. II., answered :] I recollect it perfectly well, but can this 
be adduced as an evidence of my favoring the sedition law ? Mr. Nicholas was my relation and inti- 
mate friend ; the conversation was entirely jocular, and so considered by that gentleman at the time, 
and ever after. I will never [said Mr. H.] resort to any one to support an assertion of mine on a 
matter of fact. But if I choose to do so, the gentleman from Maryland, who sits opposite to me, 
[General Smith,] and who was the brother-in-law of Mr. Nicholas, knows the undeviating friendship 
and support which I received from Mr. Nicholas, through his own political life. Mr. Jefferson was at 
that time Vice President of the United States, and was upon the most intimate terms with Mr. Ni- 
cholas. He took his seat as President of the Senate within fifteen minutes after the conversation 
alluded to had passed If it had been considered in any other light by Mr. Nicholas than as a joke, 
Mr^ Jefierson would certainly have heard of it, and he would as certainly have withheld those eviden- 
ces of his confidence and regard which I received from him, through the whole course of his subse. 
quent administration. But, Sir, [said Mr. H.,] my opposition to the alien and sedition laws was sa 
well known in the Territory, that a promise was extorted from me by my friends in the Legislature, 
hy which I was elected, that I would express no opinions in Philadelphia, which would be in the least 
calculated to defeat the important objects with which I was charged. As I had no vote, I was not 
called on to express my sentiments in the House. The republican party were all in favor of the mea- 
sures I wished to have adopted. But the federalists were the majority. Prudence, therefore, and my 
duty to my constituents, rendered it proper that I should refrain from expressing sentiments which 
would injuriously affect their interests, and which, if expressed, could not have the le.-ist influence 
upon the decisions of Congress. — 2 Gales and Seato7i''s Register of Debates, 359, 363, 364. 

It thus appears that General Harrison limited his approval of the administration of 
John Adams to ''the course pursued by it in relation to the Government of France," 
assured that his constituents also approved of that part of its policy ; and expressly denied 
that he approved of the alien and sedition law. The injuries and insults offered by the 
Revolutionary Government of France to the United States, and the indignation which they 
excited in the breasts of the American People, are matters of history. As to the alien and 
sedition law, General Harrison refers to illustrations of his decided opposition to 
them. In his letter of June 1, 1840, to Mr. Lyons, he says: 

In relation to the discussion between Mr. Randolph and myself, in the Senate, of which a state- 
ment is annexed to the address, what better evidence could be given, that there is no possibility of 
satisfying my political enemies, by any thing that I could write, than the garbled account which 
they have given of tliat discussion ? If the charge made upon me by Mr. Randolph is authentic, 
taken from a newspaper report, surely my answer to him should be considered so also. It is worthy 
of remark, too, that Mr. Randolph made no reply to my answer to his attack, and that he was not a 
man to leave a matter in that situation, if he could avoid it. The truth is, that I believe he really 
regretted his attack upon me. He repeatedly told me so, and frequently solicited me to bury the 
hatchet at a friendly dinner with him, which I agreed to do. At the dinner was Mr. Calhoun, Mr. 
Hayne, and General Hamilton, and many others, all but myself of the Jackson part}'. Our friendly 
intercourse was never afterwards interrupted. 

It may be added that the sedition law, which forms a part of Mr. Van Buren's 
standing army plan, is infinitely worse than the sedition law of John Adams, as any one 
will see on comparing them together. 

In his letter to Dr. Brownley, October 1 1, 1809, on the election of Mr. Madison to the 
Presidency of the United States, General Harrison says: 

I rejoice, sincerely, in the triumph of the republicans of Maryland. I liave written to my friend. 
General Smith, to congratulate him on his appointment to the Senate, without having any other evi- 
dence of it than the success of the republican ticket. 

As the testimony of Mr. John Randolph is adduced by the -Richmond Enquirer, and 
other partisans of Mr. Van Buren, to convict General Harrison of federalism, it may 
be well to see what opinions in regard to this witness were formerly held by his 
present vouchers: 

FROM THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER OF DECEMBER 31, 1814. 

MR. RANDOLPH'S LETTER. 

****» + *** Who cares for censures which are given without discrimination ? 
He must be weak, indeed, who regards the opinion of a man who can scatter his venom around 
him without measure or distinction. Is it a disgrace to be abused by a gentleman who literally 
abuses his own understanding ? Is it a dishonor to provoke tlie spleen of a man who has so little 
justice in his resentment as to bind even Jefferson mid Madison to the block ? + ***** 
If we still so much respect the hand that inscribed the Declaration of Independence, and the hand 
that laid the corner-stone of our Constitution, as to shield them from amadman's attack, is it for him 
to raise the yelp of censure and complaint ?*****••♦* To say that this letter 
is a new and extraordinary composition, is unnecessary ; for every thing which comes from so extra- 
ordinary a gentleman must be out of the usual track of things. He has so great an itch to be sin- 



81 

grwlar, and his nmlerst^riding is so completely bewitched by his passions, that it would be wonderful 
il' h(3 were to enjoy a liir.id intervdl for more tlian one moment. 

Ill the Richmond Enquirer of April r)th, 1815, Mr. Ritchie, in announcing the election 
of Mr. Randolph, exclaimed : 

Tories, rejoice 1 Friends of Great Britain, go joy with him I For he who has turned a deaf ear 
to tlie rights and honor of his own country, is again in. The apathy, or want of thought of his 
constituents, permits liim once more to stain tlie floor of Congress ! The .snarler is again in; but one 
consolation is, that his teeth are drawn. Federalists, too, rejoice ; because, so intemperate are their 
feelings, that tli;y would employ Randolpli, nay, the very devil himself, "to suit their purposes." If 
Mr. Randolph thinks with Mr. Garnett, [in his late circular letter,] Mr. R. is opposed to a Navy — to 
any respectable means of defence against the aggressions of an unhinged world ! Yet what do the 
Federalists cai-e for this, so tliat they can but enlist another snarler in their ranks ! Is this the love 
of country, or is it the blind rage of party ? 

The charge of federalism was brought against General Jackson as well as General 
Harrison. General Jackson^ in his letter, January 16, 1817, (Niles's Register, vol. 26, 
page 167,) says; 

Permit me to add, that names, of Ihemftehes, are but bubbles, and sometimes used for the most 
loicked purposes. I will name one instance. I have, once upon a time, been denounceu as a fede- 
ralist. 

''But," say General Harrison's enemies, "he called John Adams an honest man 
and a pure patriot^ Let us hear another witness on this subject. 

While John Adams was President of the United States, he was charged, in the 
presence of his great rival, Thomas Jefferson, with entertaining a concealed purpose 
of sapping the foundations of the Republic, and supplying its place with a monarchy on 
the British model. And this was Mr. Jefferson's answer: 

Gentlemen, you do not know that inan ; there is not upon this earth a more perfectly honest 
MAN THAN JoHN Adams ; conccahuent is no part of his character ; of that he is utterly incapable. It 
is not in his nature to meditate any thing that he would not publish to the world. The measures of 
the General (iovernment are a fair subject for difference of opinion; but do not found your opinions 
on the notion tliat there is the smallest spice of dishonesty, moral or political, in the character of John 
Adams ; for I know him well ; and I repeat, that a man more perfectly honest never issued from 

THE hands of his CrEATOR." 

This beats General Harrison all hollow, and proves, we suppose, that Mr. Jeffer- 
son was at least twice as much of di federalist (!!) as the General is. The passage just 
extracted will be found at page 54 of " A Discourse on the lives and characters of Thomas 
Jefferson and John Adams," delivered on the 19th of October, 1826, by the late lamented 
William Wirt. This gentleman is known to have been the intimate personal as 
well as the political friend of Jefferson. While alive, he had the reputation of being 
rather a warm democrat, as the term was then understood. But this, according to the 
Van Buren logic, must have been a mistake ; for Mr. Wirt bears such ample testimony 
to John Adams's honesty^ that he must henceforth be deemed almost as bitter a federalist 
as Jefferson and Harrison. 

In 1822, General Harrison, being a candidate for Congress, published the fol- 
lowing letter: 

TO THE EDITOR OF THE INQUISITOR. 

Cincinnati, Septcmher 16, 1822. 

Sir: In your last paper you recommend to the candidates, at the ensuing election, to publish their 
political creeds, that the electors may have a fair opportunity of choosing those whose sentiments 
best accord with their own. I have ever believed that every elector has a right to make this call upon 
those who offer their services to the people, and that the candidates are bound to answer it. I might, 
it is true, avail myself of the kind of exception which you make in favor of those who have had an 
opportunity of showing their political opinions by their conduct. But I have no reason to dread the 
most miimte investigation of my opinions ; and that my fellow-citizens may be enabled to compare 
my actions with my professions, I offer you the following outline of my political creed, which you 
may publish if you think it worthy of a place in your paper. The measure is more necessary at this 
time, as some of my new friends have very kindly, in various handbills and other anonymous publi. 
cations, undertaken to make one for me, which, if I have a correct knowledge of what I myself be. 
lieve, is not a very exact likeness of that which I profess. / deem myself a republican of what is 
commonly called the old Jeffersonian school, and believe in the correctness of that interpretation of 
the constitution, which has been given by the writings of that enlightened statesman, who was at the 
head of the party, and others belonging to it, particularly the celebrated resolutions of the Virginia 
Legislature, during the Presidency of Mr. Adams. 

I deny, therefore, to the General Government the exercise of any power but what is expressly 
given to it by the constitution, or what is essentially necessary to carry the powers expressly given 
into effect. 



39 

I believe that the charter given to the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional, it being not 
one of those measures nocess.iiy to carry any of the expressly granted powers into effect ; and whilst 
my votes in Congr^^ss will show that I will take any constitutional means to revoke tlie charier, my 
vote in the State Lsgislature will equally show that I am opposed to those which are unconstitutional 
or violent, and which will bring us in collision with the General Government. 

I believe in ths tendency of a large public debt to sap the foundations of the constitution, by 
creating a moneyed aristocracy, whose views and interests must be in direct hostility to those of the 
mass of the people. 

I deem it the duty, therefore, of the representative of the people, to endeavor to extinguish, as soon 
as possible, by makmg every retrenchment in the expenditures of the Government, that a proper 
performance of the public business will allow. 

I believe in tlio right of the people to instruct their representative, when elected ; and if he has 
siifhcient evidence that the instructions, which may be given him, come from a majority of his con- 
stituents, that he is bound to obey them, unless he considers that by doing it he would violate the con- 
stitution ; in which case I think it would be his duty to resign, and give them an opportunity of elect- 
ing another representative whose opinion would accord with their own. ******** 

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON. 

The following is Judge Burnet's testimony concerning General Harrison's 

politics : 

Cincinnati, February 27, 1840. 

Mv Dear Sir: I remark, in reply to your letter of this morning, that during the contest between 
Mr. Jefferson and the elder Adams, General Harrison and myself were residing in the Northwestern 
Territory, and, of course, had not the privilege of voting. At that time, I was in habits of great in- 
timacy with General Harrison, although I was a federalist, (honestly so,) and he a republican of the 
Jefferson school. I supported Adams, warmly, and he, with equal warmth, supported Mr. Jefferson. 
During the controversy, from 1796, inclusive, I conversed and argued with him times without num- 
ber — he sustaining Mr. Jefferson, and I Mr. Adams. You may assure your friend that there was not 
a more consistent, decided supporter of Mr. Jefferson, in tlie Northwestern Territory, than Genei-al 
Harrison. For the truth of this declaration, I most willingly pledge my reputation. 

I state to you what I saw, and heard, and know. When the alien and sedition law passed, the Gene- 
ral was not a member of Congress. He neitlier voted nor had an opportunity of voting on that law. 

Your friend, J. BUKNET. 

Hon. WlLI^IAM SoUTHGATE. 

At a public dinner given to him on the 2d of July, 1840, at Cincinnati, General 
Solomon Van Rensselaer, speakhig of the charge against General Harrison, of 

'■'■ancient Federalism^'' said: 

I am a living witness that, at the period to which I refer, the charge was witJiout the slightest 
foundation. The republican principles of Harrison were as well known, as his chivalric spirit, and 
he had no superior in either. It has been reserved for the politicians of the present day, even while 
surrounded by the monuments of his civil and military virtues, to question both. 

By whom is the charge of "Federalism" brought against General Harrison? By 
the supporters of Martin Van Buren, who, during the late war, supported De Witt 
Clinton, the candidate of the Federal party, for the Presid-ency, against James Madi- 
son! 

From the time of the Presidency of John Adams till that of James Monroe, the term 
"Federalist" was understood to indicate an advocate of strong powers in the Federal Go- 
vernment, and of a construction of the Federal Constitution which the Republican party 
considered latitudinous. On the accession of Mr. Monroe to the Presidency, the '' era 
of good feelings," as it was called, commenced, and the old party lines were obliterated. 
During the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, they were revived by Mr. Van Buren, to 
subserve his own interests. Let any candid man compare General Harrison's politi- 
cal creed, as stated in his letter, before cited, to the Editor of the Cincinnati Inquisitor, 
and as illustrated by his votes, his speeches, and whole conduct, civil and military, with 
the doctrines and practices of Mr. Van Buren. It is true, that Mr. Van Buren talks 
much more than General Harrison in favor of Democracy, but is it not all talk, and 
nothing more ? Has he not claimed, in the face of Congress and the nation, that the 
"Executive" is "a component part of the Legislative power f' Has he not, after the 
Sub-Treasury scheme, for giving him the control of the public purse, had been four times 
rejected, persisted in it, and at last forced it on the people against their will ? Has he not 
recommended, and said that he cannot recommend too strongly, what is in substance a 
standing army of two hundred thousand men? 

If a man is to be judged of by the company he keeps, Mr. Van Buren must be set 
down as a Federalist of the most virulent type ; for his most prominent supporters were 
leading members of the old Federal party. Witness Senators Buchanan, Williams, Hub- 



33 

bard, Wall, Ex-Senator Wilkins, Repv*sontativrs 'I'lioinas, Wcjilluiigton, &c., Pseudo- 
Represenlative Vrooni, Ainbajsador Bltfcker, &:c., &c., &c. 



X. THE ARMY BILL. 

Extract from the viessage of the President of the United Slates to the tiro Houses 
of Congress, December 2^ 1839. 

The present condition of the defences of our principal seaport.s a,nd nuvy yards, as represented by 
the accompanying report of llie Secretary of War, calls for the early and serious attention of Con- 
gress ; and, as connecting itself intimately with this subject, / cannot recommend too strongly to 
your consideration the plan submitted by that officer for t/ie organization of the Militia of the United 
States. 

Extract from the report of the Secretary of War^ dated November 30, 1839, accompa- 
nying the message from the President of the United States to the tioo Houses of Con- 
gress, at the commencement of the \st session of the 20lh Congress. 

It is proposed to divide the United Stat-^ into eifrht military districts, and to organize the militia 
in each district, ^o an to have a body of twelve tliousand jive hundred men in active service, and another 
of equal number as a reserve. This tcould give an armed militia force of two hundred tiiousa.nd 
MEN, so drilled and stationed as to be ready to take their plac3s in the ranks in dcfonce of the coun. 
try, whenever called upon to opposs the enemy or repel the invader. The age of the recruit to be 
from 20 to 37 ; the whole term of service to be eig/it years — four years in the first class, and four in 
the reserve : one-fourth part, twenty-five thousand men, to leave the service every year, passing, at 
the conclusion of the first term, into the reserve, and exempted from ordinary militia duty altogether 
at the end of the second. Jn this manner twenty-jive tliousand men viill be discharged from militia 
duty every year, and twenti/-jive thousand fresh recruits be received into the service. It will be suffi- 
cient for all useful purposes that the remainder of the militia, under certain regulations provided for 
their government, be enrolled and be miistered at long and stated intervals ; foi-, in due process of 
time, nearly the whole mass of the militia will pass through the first and second classes, and be 
either members of the active corps, or of the reserve, or counted among the e.\ompts, who will be 
liable to be called upon only in }>eriods of invasion or imminent peril. The manner of enrollment, 
the number of days of service, and the rate of compensation, ought to be fixed by law; but the de- 
tails had better be left subject to regulation — a plan of which I am prepared to submit to you. 

On the 9th of March, 1840, the House of Repr<?sentativc'S passed a Resolution, ''that 
the Secretary of War be requested to communicate his plan, in detail," for the reorganiza- 
tion of the militia of the United States. Accordingly, on the 20th of March, that officer 
submitted to the House a Report, giving his plan "in detail.''^ 

On the 8th of April, the Secretary addressed to the Hon. George M. Keim, Chair- 
man of the Committee on the Militia, in the House of Representatives, a letter in further 
explanation of the plan, in compliance with a request to that efiect from Mr. Keim. 

On the 11th .Tanuary, 1840, the Chairman of the Committee on the Militia, in the Se- 
nate, addressed to the' Secretary of War a letter, of which the Globe of August 26th, 
furnishes the following extract: 

Senate of the United States, January II, 1840. 

Sir : I am instructed by the Committee on the Militia to request of you an exposition of your plan 
for organizing the militia of the United States. It is desirable that we should be furnished a draught 
of such a bill as is contemplated in your r>?port accompanying the President's late annual message ; 
and also such "details" as you propose, so far as as they may be necessary to enable the Committee 
to comprehend the operation of the contemplated measure. 

In compliance with this letter, (says the Globe,) as we are informed by the Secretary, 
he prepared, and, on the 28th of the same month, transmitted the bill referred to direct to 
the Committee. 

The Globe of the 2(i of September, 1840, states that "the bill in question was acttially 
prepared for the Committee in conformity with the plan," by Major Samuel Cooper^ one 
of the Assistant Adjutants-GJeneral of the Army, in conjunction with another officer. 
Major Cooper makes a similar statement, under date of " Washington, August, 1840," 
published also in the Globe of September 2, from which it appears that his associate was 
Captain Dc Hart. Major Cooper adds, "that the plan was not sufficiently completed to 
be submitted [to the Secretary] before the latter part of January, 1840." 

The Hon. Samuel S. Phelps, in a letter, dated Harper's Ferry, June 20, 1840, to the 
Hon. William C. Rives, says: 

That, very early a.i the present session of Congress, a bill in form, emanating, as I understood, from 
5 



34 

the Secretary of War, vs-as laid before the Committee of the Senate on the Militia, of which Com. 
rnittee I am a menibei. That bill, which 1 suppoiie accompanied the annual coimnunicatiun oi the 
Secretary of War to Congress, was in all its important features identical v\ ith the plan communicated 
by the Secretary to the ( ommitlee of the House of Kepresentativts, under date of the ^Otli March 
last. 

The bill referred to by Mr. Phelps is doubtless that which Mie Secretary of War in- 
forms the Globe was sent to the Senate Coininittee on the 'iSth of January. 

On the 12th of June, 1840, Messrs. John B. Cary and others, citizens of Elizabeth 
City County, in Virginia, addressed a letter to the President, propounding several interro- 
gatories. 1 he Prcsidtnl answered the Utter on the ;;lfrt July, 184U, and tl.e answer was 
published in the Richmond Enquirer, on the 7th ol August. 1 he 5th interrogatory put 
by Messrs. Gary and others was as fellows: 

5. Do you approve of Mr. PoinseLt's scheme for the organization of the militia? 
This question is answered at large by the President. His letter concludes as fol- 
io ws : 

It is but lately that my attention ?uis been particularly draun to this subject ; and as there is no 
doubt that the great men to whom I have aliuded contemplated an organization of the militia, and 
provisions for its better instruction, enibracmg sulistant^lly tfie principles contahied in Mr. Poinsett's 
plan, it becomes me, in the face of so much uvparer/t authority, to hesitate before I pronounce defi- 
nitively upon its constitutionality. I shall, J am. confident, in the opinion of all candid minds, best 
perform my duty by refraining to do so until it becomes necessary to act officially in the matter. In 
the mean time, I will content myself with saying that the mcliuation of my mind, is, that the desired 
measure cannot be safely accomplished ni the form proposed, under the Federal Constitution as it 
stands. 

Having thus given you the best opinions that 1 have been able to form of the important subjects to 
which you have called my attention, you will, I hope, allow me to notice briefly one or two collateral 
considerations. 

Mr. Poinsett's uncontroverted account of the origin and progress of his plan is before you. He 
shows that it grew out of a request made of him by the Committee ou the Militia of the House of 
Representatives at the close of the session before the last, in contemplation of a possible collision 
between this country and (ireat Britain, and thiit it was matured and drawn forth under a call made 
upon him by the House at the last session. Some surprise has been expressed, and doubts appear even 
to be entertained of the correciness of his declaration, that the plan was not seen by me, or mibmiited 
to my consideration before it was communicated to Congress. Those who take this vieio of the subject 
entirely overlook the fact, that such is almost invariably the case on all similar occasions; and that, 
in replying to calls made upon them by either brunch of the Legislature, the heads of Departments 
act for Congress, and not for the President, except ordy on occasions tohere his acts are brought in 
question. The impracticability of pursuing a ditfvrent course, if even it were otherwise desirable, 
will be appreciated, when it is considered how very numerous these calls have recently been, amount- 
ing, as they have done, to 220 at a single session, independently of those made on the President him- 
self, and of letters from Comiiiittees, requiring great research, and the preparation of voluminous 
documents. Unfair as these animadversions are shown to be, this has not been even the worst aspect 
in which they have been presented. W'e hare been compelled to see, not, I should think, without 
shame and mortification on the part of every ingenuous mind, whatever may be his political preferences, 
the names of respectable citizens subscribed to statements that I had, in my annual message, expressed 
my approbation of a plan irhich not only never had been submitted to me, but was not even matured 
until more than three months after the message u-as sent to Congress, and an attempt to prove the un- 
founded assumption by the publication of a garbled extract from that document, with its true meaning 
falsified by the suppression of a material part. Nor was tlie avowed object of these extraordinary 
proceedinors less remarkable tlian the acts themselves, being nothing less than an attempt to fix upon 
me the design of establishing a standing army of two hundred thousand men, for political and per- 
sonal purposes. If I had been charged with the design of establishing among you, at the public ex- 
pense, a menagerie of two hundred thousand wild beasts, it would not have surprised me more, nor 
would it, in my judgment, have been ouo jot nioro preposterous. 

I am fortunately, gentlemen, not oversensitive to attacks of this character, and have withal an abi- 
ding confidence in the intelligence of the people, ivhich renders them proof against all such attempts to 
deceive them. If I understand my own Jeelings, my chief regret in tvitnessing such degrading exhi- 
bitions arises from a consideration of the opinion which foreigners, ivho hare not the same reasons to 
respect our political institutions that we have, are likely to form of the character of our people, when 
they see that conspicuous men among us can promise themselves any advantages from attempts to delude 
their fellow -citizens by means of such monstrous absurdities. This regret is, however, I confess, ma- 
terially diminished by the conviction that the people will, in the sequel, as they have heretofore done, 
convince those who attempt in this manner to operate upon their credulity, of the folly of seeking to 
accomplish in this country political objects by such discreditable means. 

The Annerican people will decide whether the imputations which the President so 
lavishly casts upon others are or are not descriptive oi' his own conduct. He chooses to 
regard the question which he professes to answer as applying to some plan or other sub- 
sequent to that which he had transmitted to Congress in December, as a part of his annual 



35 

message, and which, in that message, he says, '' / cannot recommend too strongly to your 
cofisideration.''' The ''plan" of November 30, 1839, which he thus recommends, is the 
plan which was denounced, as far back as the 15th of February, by Mr. Rives, in a pub- 
lished letter, and which had excited, long before any subsequent plan was broached, so 
much alarm throughout the State of Virginia, where the gentlemen resided whom the 
President was addressing. It had been submitted to him, on the 30th of November, by 
the Secretary of War, and was before him till the 24th of December, when his message 
was sent to Congress. The Constitution of the United States requires the President to 
"give to the Conoress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their con- 
sideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient^ The President 
cannot be presumed to deny that he approved of this plan of November 30, 1839, unless 
he wishes to be understood as having, in the discharge of a high constitutional duty, re- 
commended a measure as ''necessary and expedient" which in his conscience he disap- 
proved, or which he had not examini'd, and knew nothing about. To avoid this dilemma, 
he affects, in his letter to Messrs. Gary and others, total silence as to this plan of Novem- 
ber 30, 1839, and confines his answer to one of the subsequent communications of the 
Secretary of War — the Report of March 20, 1840. And even, as to this, how does his 
assertion stand the test of fiicts? The Secretary's plan or report to the President, dated 
November 30, 1839, says: "The manner of enrollment, the number of days of service, 
and the rate of compensation, ought to be fixed by law: but the details had better be left 
subject to regidation — a plan of which I am prepared to submit to you^ The Secretary 
tells the President,'' I am prepared to submit" a plan of details to you; and the Secre- 
tary tells Congress that the plan is "submitted" 

Again, the President says to Messrs. Cary and others, the plan '' not only never had 
been submitted to me., but was not even matured until more than three months after the. 
message teas sent to_ Congress" And the Globe, in defending the President, brings out 
proof that this ''matured" plan was sent to the Senate on the 28th of January — only ^re 
iceehs, instead of ^' more than three months, after the message loas sent to Congress!" 

The President's charge oi' " garbling" is understood to be meant for the Address, dated 
May 24, 1840, of Messrs. Alfbrd, Dawson, Habersham, King, Nesbit, and Warren, 
Representatives from the State of Georgia, to their constituents. In some of the copies 
first printed of this able and patriotic paper, the writers, in quoting the President's message, 
had accidentally omitted the words "to your consideration,;" an omission which, so sooa 
as discovered, was supplied. But the omission was wholly immaterial, either as a matter 
of philology or of constitutional law. We have seen that the Constitution of the United 
States makes it the duty of the President to recomraend to the ^'consideration" of Con- 
gress only "such measures as he shall judge necessary and erpedie?it." 

The attitude in which the President has placed himself before the American people, by 
his defences on the subject of the Army Bill, present a (^u;^stion [or their consideration 
even graver than any arising out of the bill itself, bad as the bill is. But let us now advert 
to some provisions in the Constitution, and apply them to this "matured" plan, of which 
the President says that he '' cannot pronou.nce definitively upon its constitutionality." 

1st. The Constitution of the United Stat's [art. 1, sec. 8, clause 14) gives Congress 
power ''to provide lor calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress 
insurrections^ and repel invanona" Tiiese three are the only purposes for which the 
mxVxivdi CdM.\iQ consfitutionMy z-i\\(i\ o\\\.. According to the "matured plan" they may 
be called out for a purpose not authorized by th? Constitution. 

2d. The Constitution of the United States {art. 1, sec. 9, cla^use \B) gives Congress 
power ''to provide for organizmg, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing 
such part of them as miy be emphyei in the service of the United States; reserving to 
the States, respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority oi training the mili- 
tia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." 

The seventeenth section of the " plan" of March 20, 1840, takes from the States the 
power expressly reserved to them by the Constitution, of " training" the militia, and vests 
it in the President. The section referred to is as follows: 

17th. That the President of ttie United States be autlioriz-d to call fori h and astenMe nucfi num. 
herif of the active force of the militia, at. .s-hcA pince.ft within their rRspoclivo districts, and at siicfi 

times, not exceeding twice, nor days in the snme year, as fi.e may deem necessary ; and during 

such period, including the time when going to and returning from the place of rendezvous, they 
shall ba deemed in the service of the United States, and be subject to suck regulations as the Presto 



36 

dent may think proper to adopt for their instruction, discipline, and improvement in military know- 

ledge. 

3d. The Constitution of the United States, [art. 3, sec. 2, clause 3,) is as follows: 
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall he by jury, and such trial shall be 

held in the State where Ihe said crimes shall have been committed ; but when not committed within 

any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. 

The first article of the amendments to the Constitution is as follows: 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the riglit of the people peaceably to 

assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

The fifth article of the amendments is as follows: 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamoiis crime, unless on a present, 
mont or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the mili- 
tia, WHEN IN ACTOAL sKRVicE, IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER; uor shall any person be subject, for 
the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal 
case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process 
of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use vs'iLliout just compensation. 

The sixth article of the amendments to the Constitution is as follows : 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy aiid public trial, by an 
IMPARTIAL JURY of the st ite and district wherein the crime sli.ill have been committed, (which district 
shall have been previously ascertained by law,) and to be informed of the nature and cause of the 
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for ob- 
taining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. 

The I7th section, before cited, of the "plan" of March 20, 1S40, after providing that 
the President may "call forth and assemble such numbers of the active force of the mili- 
tia, at such places within their respective districts, and at such times (not exceeding twice, 

nor days in the same year) as he may deem necessary," declares that ''during such 

period, &c., the militia shall be deemed in the service of the U/iilcd States." 

By the twentieth section of the same "plan," it is declared "that the militia of the Uni- 
ted States, or any portion thereof, when employed in the service of the United States, shall 
be subject to the same rules and articles of war as the troops of the United States." 
Of these "rules and articles of war" (see Act of April 10, 1806, Laws of the United 
States, vol. 4, pages 13-28,) some are as follows : 

Art. 5. Any officer or soldier who shall use contemptuous or disrespectful words against the Presi- 
dent of the United States, against the Vice President thereof, against tlie Congress of the United 
States, or against the Chief Alagistrate of any of the United States, in whicli tiiey may be quartered, 
if a commissioned officer, shall be cashiered, or otherwise punished, as a court-martial shall direct; 
if a non-commissioned officer or soldier, he sliall suffiir such punisliment as shall be inflicted on liim 
by the sentence of a court-martial. 

Art. 6. Any officer or soldier who shall beliave himself with contempt or disrespect towards his 
commanding officer, shall be punished, according to tlie nature of his offence, by the judgment of a 
court-martial. 

Art. 7. Any officer or soldier who shall begin, excite, cause, or join in any mutiny or sedition, in 
any troop or company in the service of the United States, or in any party, post, detachment, or guard, 
shall suffer death, or such other punishment as by a court-martial shall be inflicted. 

Art. 8. Any officer, non-conimissioned officer, or soldier, who being present at any mutiny or sedi- 
tion, does not use his utmost endeavor to suppress the same, or, coming to the knowledge of any in- 
tended mutiny, doss not, without delay, give information thereof to his commanding oflicer, shall be 
punished, by the sentence of a court-martial, with death, or otherwise, according to the nature of his 
offence. 

Art. 9. Any officer or soldier who shall strike his superior officer, or draw or lift up any weapon, 
or offer any violence against him, being in the exiecution of his office, on any pretence whatever, 
or shall disobey any lawful command of his superior ofhcer, shall suffer death, or such other punislu 
inent as shall, according to the nature of his offence, be inflicted upon him by the sentence of a court, 
martial. 

Art. 20. All officers and soldiers who have received pay, or have been dul}' enlisted in the service 
of the United States, and shall be convicted of having deserted the same, shall suffer death, or such 
other punishment as by the stmtence of a court-martial shall be inflicted. 

Art. 21. Any non-commissioned officer or soldier who shall, without leave from his commanding 
officer, absent himself from his troop, company, or detachment, sliall, upon being convicted thereof^ 
be punished, according to the nature of his offence, at the discretion of a court-martial. 

Art. 23. Any officer or soldier who shall be convicted of having advised or persuaded any other 
officer or soldier to desert the service of the United States, shall suflcr death, or such other punishment 
a« shall be inflicted upon him by the sentence of a court-martial. 

Art. 24. No officer or soldier shall use any reproachful or provoking speeches or gestures to another, 



37 

upon pain, if an officer, of being put in an-est; if a soldier, confined and asking pardon of ths offend- 
ed, in the presence of the commanding officer. 

Art. 37. Any non.cominis--ioned officer or soldier who shall be convicted, at a regimental court, 
martial, of having sold, or designedly or through neglect wasted, the ammunition delivered to him, 
to be employed in the service of the United States, shall be punished at the discretion of sttclii 
court. 

Art. 41. All non-commissioned officers and soldiers who shall be found one mile from camp, with- 
out leave in writing from their commanding officer, shall suffijr such punishment as shall be inflicted 
upon them by the sentence of a court-martial. 

Art. 42. No non-commissioned officer or soldier shall lie out of his quarters, garrison, or camp, with- 
out leave from his superior officer, upon the penalty of being punished, according to the nature of his 
off mce, by the sentence of a court-martial. 

Alt. 43. Every non-commissioned officer and soldier shall retire to his quarters or tent at the 
beating of the retreat ; in default of wliich, he shall be punislied according to the nature of his 
offence. 

Art. 44. No non-commissioned officer or soldier shall fail in repairing, at the titne fixed, to the place 
of parade, of exercise, or other rendezvous appointed by liis commanding officer, if not prevented by 
sickness or some other evident necessity ; or shall go from the said place of rendezvous, without leave 
from his commanding officer, before he shall be regularly dismissed or relieved, on the penalty of being 
punislied, according to the nature of his offence, by the sentence of a court-martial. 

Art. 45. Any commissioned officer who shall be found drunk in his guard party, or other duty, shall 
be cashiered. Any non-coininissioned officer or soldier, so offijnding, shall suffer such corporal pun- 
ishment as sliall be inflicted by a court-martial. 

Art. 4b'. Any sentinel who shall be found sleeping upon his post, or shall leave it before he shall be 
regularly relieved, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as shall be inflicted by a court-martial. 

Art. 50. Any officer or soldier who shall, without urgent necessity, or witliout the leave of his 
superior officer, quit his guard, platoon, or division, shall be punislied according to the nature of his 
ofience, by the sentence of a court-martial. 

Art. 53. Any person belonging to the armies of the United States, who shall make known tht* 
watchword to any person who is not entitled to receive it, according to the rules and discipline of war, 
or shall presume to give a parole or watchword different from what he received, shall suffer death, or 
such other punishment as shall be ordered by tlie sentence of a general court-martial. 

.\rt. 64. General courts-martial may consist of any number of commissioned officers, from five to 
thirteen, inclusively ; but they shall not consist of less than thirteen, where that number can be con- 
vened without manifest injury to the service. 

Art. 65. Any general officer commanding an army, or colonjl comminding a separate department, 
may appoint general courls-inartial whenever necessary. But no sentence of a court. martial shall be 
carried into execution, until after the whole proceedings shall have been laid before the officer order- 
ing the same, or tire officer commanding the troops for the time being ; neither shall any sentence of 
a general court-martial, in time of peace, extending to the loss of life, or the dismission of a commis. 
sioned officer, or which shall, either in time of peace or war, respect a general oiHcer, be carried into 
execution until after the whole proceedings shall have been transmitted to the Sjcretary of War, to 
be laid before the President of the United States, for his confirmation or disapproval, and orders in the 
case. All other sentences may be confirmed and exi'cuted by the officer ordering the court to assem- 
ble, or the commanding officer for the time being, as the case may be. 

Art. 66. Every officer commanding a regiment or corps may appoint for liis own regiment or corps, 
courts-martial, to consist of three commissioned officers, for the trial and punishment of offences not 
capital, and decide upon their sentences. For the same purpose, all officers commanding any of the 
garrisons, forts, barracks, or other places where the troops consist of different corps, may assemblo 
courts-martiil, to consist of three commissioned officers, and decide upon tlieir sentences. 

Art. 67. No garrison or regimental court-martial shall have the power to try capital cases or com- 
mission";d officers, neither shall they inflict a fine exceeding one month's pay, nor imprison, nor put 
to hard labor, any non-commission^d officer or soldier, for a longir time than one month. 

Art. 74. On the trial of cases not capital, before courts-martial, tlio depositions of witnesses, not in 
the line or staff of the army, may be taken before some justice of the peace, and read in evidence: 
Provided the prosecutor and the person accused are present at the taking the same, or are duly notified 
thereof. 

The restriction in the 67th article of war applies only to '' garrison or regimental 
courts-martial." Gc?ie/-a/ courts-martial may \.xy "capital cases." 

Such is the code which is to be applied, in a time of profnund peace, to the free citizens 
of these United States. Let them examine the offences which it creates, the mode of trial 
which it prescribes, the evidence which it authorizes, and the punishments which it inflicts, 
and they will see at least /o«.r clear and palpable violations of the Constitution of the United 
States. We have before shown that the ''p/^/i" involved two other violations of the 
Constitution — in all, six ! 

This is- the plan of which the President says, evo.n at this late and pressing moment, that 
he '' cannot pronownce deJbUiive/i/ upon its constitutionality ;" and thinks that he shall best 
perform his '' duty, by refraining to do so v,ntil it becomes necessary to act officially in the 



38 

matter-!'^ This is the case for hesitation, selected by a Chief Magistrate who is so ready, 
on convenient occasions, to threaten Congress iu advance with the veto ! ! 



XI. NATIONAL BANK AND SUB-TREASURY. 

It has been seen that General Harrison^ in his letter to the Editor of the Cincinnati In- 
quisitoTj expressed his opinion that the charter given to the late Bank of the United States 
was unconstitutional. When a candidate for the Presidency, in 1836, he was asked by 
Mr. Sherrod Williams, whether he would, if elected, sign a bill incorporating a Bank of 
the United States. He answered; '' I would, if it ive.re clearly ascertained that the pub- 
lic interest, in relation to the collection and disbursement of the reve/iue, would materially 
suffer without orie^ and there v)ere unequivocal manifestations of public opinion iii its 
favor.'''' This is the doctrine of Mr. MADISON. [See his speeches in opposition to the first 
Bank of the United States, his special message of January 30, 1815, and his annual mes- 
sage of December 5, 1815.] 

Mr. Van Bureti, who formerly petitioned for the establishment, at Albany, of a branch 
of the Bank of the United States, has, since he became President, repeatedly threatened 
to veto any act of Congress creating another Bank of the United States, and in a manner 
which leaves no room to doubt that his determination would not be changed by the ''peti- 
tions" of the wdiole American people, should they think proper to call for such an institu- 
tion. He has, however, in contempt of their will, over and over again, persevered in 
pressing his Sub-Treasury project — a project worse than a National Bank of the wojst 
type, because it is an E.tecutive Gocernment Bank. His own confidential partisans had 
before denounced it as an usurpation and tyranny, as exposing the public Treasury " to be 
plundered by a hundred hands^ ivhere one cannot now reach it;" — [See Globe, 1834] — as 
increasing, " in so alarming a degree, the patronage^ powcr^ and influence of the Execu- 
tive;" asa''«?t/fZ and dangerous scheme, establishing two sorts of currency — the better 
for the officers of GoDernment, the baser one for the people;" as a ''notable scheme," 
which '' will enlarge the Executive power, already too great for a Republic ;" as having 
" no security in it;" as involving " heavy and unnecessary expense ;" as an " endless source 
of patronage" and " a patronage of the most dangerous influence;" and as a '\fruitfid 
source of mischief" — [See Richmond Enquirer, 1837.] The journal last cited also said, 
''temptation will creep in, and corruption, in every form.^ following at its heels." Such, 
however, is the despotism of Executive influence, under the new Administration system, 
that so soon as the President had forced the Sub-Treasury scheme into a law, the author 
of the denunciations last cited exclaimed, " This important measure.^ so dear to the heart 
of every patriot, has now become the law of the land;" '' no one., who has any regard for 
truth., ca7i now say that it has not received their assent and approbation !" And branded 
individuals, who had formerly approved, but who, on further examination, condemned the 
project, as having " basely reversed their solemn judgments., and entailed upon themselves 
<in everlast'mg disgrace ! !" — [See Richmond Crisis, July 8, 1840.] Of the power of the 
President, in forcing this scheme on the country, and of the vassalage of his partisans, an 
adequate idea seems to have been formed by a distinguished convert to it. '• The Presi- 
dent," he says, ^'should long since have compellep his party to carry out the measure." 
This remarkable passage is the closing sentence of a letter of the Hon. George M. Troup, 
f){ Georgia, publ:;s!ied in the Extra Globe o( July 1 and July 8, 1840. The date of the 
letter should, doubtless, be May 16, 1840; but is printed Miy 16, 1040 — a far more suit- 
able date, considering the character of the measure recommended. A "complicated sys- 
tem," of which hard money, hard work, low wages, low prices, no meat, direct taxes, and 
the perpetual ignorance and depression of the great mass of the people, are elements, is 
more appropriate to the year te7i hundred and forty, than to the year eighteen hundred and 
forty; to the darkness and despotism of the eleventh century, than to the enlightened and 
free spirit of the nineteenth century. 

It is well known that the President obtained the authority of law for holding the people's 
money in his own hands by means even more objectionable than the result — by a coali- 
tion with politicians between whom and himself the relations of only yesterday had been 
those of a political and personal hostility, which could find no language of crimination 
bitter enough or low enough to express the hatred and scorn that were felt on both sides. 



39 

The moral sense of the country was shocked by the unhallowed union: its first fruits 
were a litter of spurious legislators, and its next, the '''wild and dangerous" Treasury 
Bank. It was a suitable beginning of a project which gives the President the control, 
tlirough the people's money, ol the people's liberties, that a sovereign State of the Union 
should be laid prostrate at his feet. That this Sub-Treasury scheme is, in truth, a Trea- 
sury Bank, no candid and discriminating inquirer can doubt. The President himself 
says, in substance, that it is so, as will appear by the following extracts from the Presi- 
dent's message to Congress, at the special session, September 4, 1837: 

" The various transactions vvliich bear the name of domestic exchanges differ essentially in their 
natur'', op riition, and utility. Ono class of them consists of bills of exchange drawn for the pur- 
pose of transfiiring actual capital from one part of the country to another, or to anticipate the pro- 
ceeds of property actually transmitted. Bills of this description are highly useful in the movements 
of trade, and well deserve all the encouragement which can rightfully be given to them. Another 
class is made up of bills of exchange not drawn to transfer actual capital, nor on the credit of pro- 
perty transmitted ; but to create tictitious capital, partaking at once of the character of notes dis- 
counted in bank, and of bank notes in circulation, and swelling the mass of paper credits to a vast 
extent, in a most objectionable manner. These bills have formed, for the last few years, a large pro. 
portion of what are termed the domestic exchanges of the country, serving as the means of usurious 
profit, and constituting the most unsafe and precarious paper in circulation. This species of traffic, 
instead of being upheld, ought to be discountenanced by tlie Government and the people." 

" In transferring its funds from place to place, the Government is on the same footing with the pri- 
vate citizen, and may resort to the same legal means. It .may do so, through the medium of bills 

DRAWN BY itself, OR PURCHASED FROM OTHERS; AND L\ THESE OPERATIONS, IT MAY, IN A MANNER UN- 
DOUBTEDLY CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGITIMATE, FACILITATE AND ASSIST EXCHANGES OF INDIVIDUALS FOUNDED 
ON REAL TRANSACTIONS OF TRADE. ThE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS MAY liE DONE, AND THE BEST MEANS OP 

EFFECTING IT, ARE ENTITLED TO THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION. This has been bestowed by the Secretary 
of the Treasury, and his views will be submitted to you in his Report." 

" If to these considerations be added the facilities which will arise from enabling the Treasury to satisfy 
the public creditors by its drafts or notes, receivable in payment of the public dues, it may be safely 
assumed, that no motive of convenience to the citizen requires the reception of bank paper." 



XII. MR. VAN BUREN'S OPPOSITION TO MR. MADISON. 

Mr. Holland, in his life of Mr. Van Buren, edition of 1835, which we have seen is au- 
thenticated by Mr. Van Buren, adopts as his own, the account given in a " Letter of Hon. 
Benjamin F. Butler to Hugh A. Garland, Esq,, of Virginia, in March, 1835," of the 
course of Mr. Van Buren in regard to the nomination of De Witt Clinton for the Presi- 
dency, and his course in relation to the war. At page 90, of the " Life," Mr. Butler, as 
quoted by Mr. Holland, after stating the fact of Mr. Clinton's nomination to the Presidency, 
on the 29th of May, 1812, says: 

Mr. Van Buren was not then a member of the Legislature, nor was he in any way connected with 
these proceedings. He, however, concurred in Ihe propriety of supporting the nomination thus made 
and accepted, and, at the session of the Legislature held in November, lbl2, in conjunction with a 
majority of the Republican members of each branch, he took a decided part in support of Presiden- 
tial ELECTORS, who WERE VOTED FOR AS FRIENDLY TO Mr. Clinton, and wlio ultimately gave him the 
vote of the State. 

Here we have the historical /rtc^ admitted, that Mr. Van Buren " took a decided part" 
In support of Mr. Clinton's pretensions to the Presidency. What was the political cha- 
racter of the movement is a matter of opinion ; and, on this head, Mr. Butler differs widely 
from some other political critics. The Washington Globe, a journal whose loyalty to the 
President is not less fervid than Mr. Butler's, expresses, under date of August 8 1840, the 
following opinion : 

In 1812, these Federalists had another remarkable vision. It was revealed to them, in a dream that 
James Madison had involved the country in a "wicked and ruinous war;" that the Democrats who 
supported him were all " war hawks ;" and that none were true patriots and friends of their country 
but those who took sides against it, and favored Great Britain, the " bulwar]%Df our religion." Thev 
also dreamed that Madison " deserved a halter," and ought to % " sent to the Isle of Elba," and that 
I)e Witt Clinton, who had previously compared them to the " fallen angels, who had rather rule in 
Hell than serve in Heaven," was destined to take his place. From this dream they were awakened 
on the ides of November, and, to their great astonishment, found that only eighty-nine to one hundred 
and twenty.seven of the people had been dreaming. 



40 
APPENDIX. 

GENERAL HARRISON'S ELECTION MORALLY CERTAIN. 

In 1836, the votes for Harrison as President were as follows: 

Vermont, - - - - 7 votes. I Ohio, - - - - 21 votes. 

New-Jersey, . - . 8 | Indiana, - - - - 9 

Delaware, - . - ' - 3 I Kentucky, - - - 15 

Maryland, - - . . 10 | — 73 votes. 

The two last-named States have recently answered, in the most convincing manner, two of the most 
prominent slanders against Gen. Harr'ison. One of these slanders charged him with having been 
willing to sell the white citizens of Indiana into slavery. NO ! says Indiana, with €2.93^ voices! 
The other slander was, that Gen. Harrison had sacrificed in battle the blood of Kentuckians. NO ! 
says Kentucky, with 54.£@9 voices! No candid man doubts, though Administration Chapmans 
may '-crow" to the contrary, that General Harrison will receive the 73 electoral votes of these seven 
States in this year of 1840. The following States voted for Mr. Van Buren at the Presidential elec- 
tion in 1836. Elections held in thein since the re-nomination of Gen. Harrison cleai'ly indicate that 
they will vote for Gen. Harrison at the approaching election : 



Connecticut, . - - 8 votes. 
Ifhode-Island, - - 4 

Virginia, - - - 23 



Louisiana, - - . 5 votes. 
North-Carolina, . - 15 

Maine, - - - 10 65 

Add Harrison's vote in 1836, 73 

In addition to these votes, the following may be regarded as also reasonably certain for Harrison, viz : 
New-York, - - - 42 votes. I Mississippi, . . - 4 votes. 
Tennessee, - - - 15 | Micliigan, - . . 3 
Georgia, - - . 11 I Massachusetts, . . 14 119 



Pennsylvania, . . 30 



Total, 257 



Whole number of votes, 294 ; necessary to a choice, 148. So that, on the foregoing calculation of 
257 votes as reasonably certain for Gen. Harrison, he will have enough, and 109 to spare. We be- 
lieve that every one of these 257 votes for lianison and Tyler may be secured, if proper exertions 
be made by the friends of the Constitution ; to say nothing of our prospects in Alabama, Arkansas, 
Illinois, Missouri, South-Carolina, and New-Hampshire, the only States in which Mr. Van Buren has, 
according to present appearances, any chance of support. It is highly important, as a terror to evil- 
doers, that the present party should go out of power by as large a vote in the electoral colleges as can 
be obtained. If the progress of public opinion, in resolving to purge the national councils, continues 
at its present rate, there would be no cause for surprise if the Administration now in power should be 
ejected, in November next, by the UNANIMOUS VOICE of the electors of the Americ:in People! 

But our friends should not allow this prospect to relax their exertions. They should remember that 
they are contending with the immense patronage of the Government, wielded by unscrupulous and 
desperate agents. Let each Whig and Conservative act as if believing that the result of the elec- 
tion depends on his own exertions and vote ; and such a victory must follow as will render selfisp 

DEMAGOGUES POWERLESS IN THIS COUNTRY FOR AT LEAST A CENTURY TO COME. 

































cT^C^ 





















^ocs:<^ 



^^^P^^^- 









^: <t 



'5-<c:^ 



- 'SC'tsf^ 



*C C'frc 



^^^SI^E^^^sI^eSSB 


^^^ 


^B^^B^^^^^^^?j^T!^Z^IP 


^^* 




1^ 









:^^'<<c <! 









CmCC 

crc - 
sec 





















^il^^'- 



^IM^^^IM 


















CPG^^IC:, 






c Vl ^'^^' *mL <l<: 

























^:2^G 



*<^gc:.^rr 



■'<Z:'<L(:4Zs 



^"Cc 






, <3it4C; €^o:;_ cjiw 






^i^ C_^< 



(«:. ^^^L: <M 









,. <:^c 






<^ 












?^ -V err ■^- 



^ ^ W^ 















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011895 506 7 S 



